Based on the extremely tall and close handlebar setup, and that you seem to feel the ride is too violent, even on pavement, without a sprung seat post, I’d say that you’re trying to ride in a very upright position, almost too upright, even. You should be leaning forward slightly, with some of your weight on your hands and feet, as well as the saddle.

Lower the angle on the stem, and rotate the bar bar so the ends sweep back slightly. It looks like you’ got them completely vertical.


No, it’s definitely an XC bike. The Cannondale F-1000 was the basis for multiple XC championship winning team bikes, in the 90s, and that’s what a fast MTB looked like.
The front end is Cannondale’s proprietary Headshok suspension fork, with a single shock inside the head tube. In this example, it’s an 80mm air/oil unit. It was lighter and more precise than other forks like the Manitou/2 and the MAG-21.
A rigid fork would be better than a cheap, flexy suspension fork, but it will be slower, and demand more skill from the rider. Whether it’s better for you would depend greatly on where and how you ride.

I smell a sock.

BTW....This BF bike fit pic cannot be overlooked:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5610/...f1988bc8_z.jpg

I think Timtak's had even more reach and drop

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9e9c92f25c.jpg
Basically the "correct" fit for a XC hardtail. You have a window to work with that is balanced, and it will vary somewhat dependent on geometry. This is my racebike.

That is timktak's.

He was/is a colorful guy!

This is how I bought the bike. Its a pretty good stem, but I didnt like the handling at all. I felt like i was leaning forward way too much and dreaded being on the bike for more than 10 minutes.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...06a8d93f79.png




I do really like that super upright seating position, but I have to do some really ridiculous stuff with the stem to get it to where i like it. Even with my current setup, I lean forward just slightly, and i feel like it really compromises frknt tire traction when im really thrashing it around turns.

i don't see how my stem setup would cause the handling to be rougher tho. With the GT's having an extra weld point at the top tube, it makes the frame extremely stiff, right where you'd ideally want a bit of compliance.

the front fork on that cannondale looks fantastic. I bet it works great. I'd take that over most new XC bikes. Is it yours?

How on earth is that even rideable?

How much money did you allegedly waste, including money spent on different wheels (I see different vale stem types), creating your abomination shown farther up from what's pictured immediately above, or are you just trolling?

You must not be very tall.

I am 6' 2". Sorry, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts waiting for you back stage. Oh, and welcome to my iggy list, Cube. Or is it Moishe?

I'd wager that it's the aluminum that makes it stiff more than the triple triangle gimmick.

This should tell you that the bike doesn't fit you. If you have to expose that much seatpost out of the frame and resort to eight inches of spacers, extenders, a hinged stem, and a riser bar just to be comfortable, you're either on the wrong kind of bike or one that is woefully the wrong size. If it works for you, that's great, but you're effectively nullifying whatever "geometry" the bike was designed around, and it's not going to handle in any way, shape, or form like it's supposed to.

agree with you on the Aluminum bit. These 90's US frames are stiffer and lighter than the post 2000's taiwanese stuff.

I have a 34" inseam. Unless I want to ride a cruiser, I'm not going to feel comfortable on the bike. The 170mm cranks are definetely part of the issue.

Unless your handlebars are at or above the same level as your saddle, then we can safely say, that this entire camp of people is riding a bike which does not fit them, at all, and probably think that the geometry and ride is great . Unless that's just how they like to ride - with evidently too much weight over the front axle.

For somebody with a shorter inseam and not quite as tall, im sure that the geometry of this bike will feel much better.

As for the triple triangle design, I feel like with the seatstays being so closely mounted into the top tube/downtube instead helps give the wheelbase gives this rear biased feel by using a relatively long chainstay without a huge wheelbase.

It also changes the angle of the the seat stays too. Its a unique feeling. And definitely not in a bad way. I highly doubt anyone who dismisses the quality of the aluminum in these rare US- made frames has actually ridden one himself. My friend has a Taiwanese made GT aggressor in a large size which fits him much better, its very stable pushed to its limits i saw him go full speed into a gravel turn; the front tire dug in perfectly, with the rear tire gently breaking loose, scrambling for traction in a perfect drift. But the aluminum used here feels heavier and inferior. The welds aren't as perfect. The two frames are otherwise pretty much the same in terms of geometry.

I remember TimTak's windshield wiper glasses! :lol:

Yep. Classic. The OP only wishes he were that clever.

You're not comfortable on your bike because the frame doesn't fit you and because you don't want to sit in the posture it's designed to accommodate.

Just because a rider isn't sitting bolt upright, it doesn't mean their bike doesn't fit them. Mountain bike frames and suspension forks are designed to distribute the rider's weight to maximize off-road performance. That includes having some weight on the front axle.

Yes. Because the bike will fit them.

A correctly-sized bike (especially a 29er) would handle like it's supposed to, while affording you enough comfort to ride it. I imagine you'd still use some spacers, a tall stem, and a riser bar, but you'd at least be able to forego the towering stem contraption.

You are going to break your face if you try to ride that monstrosity off road. It's not going to matter to anyone here, but there is probably someone who will be sad when you break your face. I can guarantee you are going to hate it, if nothing else. The amount of leverage you are exerting on the front end, plus the multiple failure points should keep you riding sedately on paved rail trails, if at all.

My Zaskar LE and my Xziang of the same era were incredible bikes. I should have never sold the Xz, it was so friggin cool.

However, they ride like road bikes. Or flat bar gravel bikes at least. Not particularly good at super technical stuff. Certainly not as well pinned to the ground uphill. Overall, less stable. What those bikes could do was cruise across town on pavement, not much slower than on a road bike.

I'd drop some coin if the right one fell in my lap but not because it's faster.

There is absolutely no physical reason that 42 year old me can ride harder stuff, cleaner, and faster than 20 year old me. It really is the bike.

I've just got a plain old Trek Xcaliber, imagine what an actual nice bike can do.

Yep. I still have my '05 Giant Rainier -- well, the frame; the rest was all rebuilt by me over the years. It's an old-school NORBA geometry 26er hardtail, w/standard angles and suspension. I still love the thing for 'street'/non-technical off-road. Even though I'm now an old man (69), I have a blast scooting around the streets/river trails with the thing. It's extremely stable and quick and a helluva lot of fun. I can quite honestly say that if I could keep only one of my bikes, it would be the one.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4a7766e52c.jpg

I think that a lot of people who are only familiar with inexpensive ‘ATB’ style mountain bikes don’t realize that there were high-performance 26” MTBs.

Weight on the front wheel is how you get the traction to make turns. Unless you’re riding in loose sand or deep mud; That’s the physics. That’s how it works.

The “punishingly stiff” ride you experience is because you insist on sitting bolt-upright, you have no way but to put all you weight dead on your ass. That, and you’re probably running your tires pressure too high.
It doesn’t have a thing to do with aluminum or triple triangles; those bikes weren’t designed to be comfortable, they were designed to be fast, which means stiff. I ride a vintage Cannondale, a couple, actually, road and MTB, and that stiffness is what they’re known for.

You’re admittedly new to this, so if you really want to get into MTB, get some more trail miles in, get more comfortable on the bike, and get the book I suggested. Take the advice that’s been offered , and get some practice; you don’t have re-invent the wheel.

I am sort of mystified, after reading your glowing review of your Zaskar and then seeing what you claim is the actual bike. That bike in the picture is suitable for sub-10mph parking-lot cruises and not much else. Sitting up that high with all the weight in the back .... you would be on your backside at the first serious hill, and the issue with sitting upright is that you have zero shock absorption.

When walking (which most of us do upright) the legs and hips take up most of the shock. If you are seated, that shock is delivered directly into the spine, which is Not evolved to take shocks vertically. You will beat up your lower back, crush your kidneys, and eventually rupture all your discs.

Leaning forward uses the muscles of the lower back and abdomen to stabilize the upper body, using the hips as a hinge, and if you ride correctly, with some actual pressure on the pedals, this takes a lot of the impact off the spine.

Your set-up is basically a fat-tire version of a 1960s Sting Ray---a bike horribly designed to do anything but sprint up to home-made jumps and cruise in parades.

You and I are about the same size with the same inseam. here is a proper 26" MTB: Sorry for the low-quality pic but it should give you an idea.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d8e7a5d774.jpg
Yes, I lean forward, and the weight gives the front end bite---with no weight on the front end the tire will just wash out laterally with any kind of speed ro anything but hardpacked earth or pavement.

It's a 30-pound full-suspension bike with a 1132 mm WB, 483 mm top tube, and 68.5/ 72.5 head- and seat tube angles. Chain stays are 425 mm. The FOX Float RL fork offers 140 mm of travel and still feels tighter, stiffer, and more responsive than the 80 mm I had on my Univega (which was more of a classic NORBA set-up.) I still love the idea of an XC race bike but the skill required to get the most out of one on technical trails ./.... nah. I like what i have.

I am not convinced you are serious about your bike, but if you are .... over time you will go through the same process as most other riders and bike designers. The original Repack bikes (first US MTBs) were old balloon-tire Schwinn cruisers with sprung seats and riser bars. (In fact one of the old Repack riders is a contributor to this site--quite an honor for us, IMO.) Over time, stems go shorter, bars got wider, BBs got higher, front suspension forks were stolen from scooters, then rear shocks, and so onward ....

Eventually, assuming you really want to ride off-road, you will discover that the proper tool for the job is the sort of bike shown in the various photos .... Not yours (sorry.) Of course, you can ride whatever you like, and ride however you like .... and hopefully enjoy it a ton, which to me is the point of the exercise ... but if you really want to get rolling off-road you will need to build some fitness, strengthen your core, drop your handlebars to be within shouting distance of the frame, and use your bke the way it was meant to be used.

You might not have the fitness or technique to do it now, but over time .... it is great to have goals, and great that you are liking the process of getting there .... but believe, you are only an egg.

luckily, I dont use this bike much for trail riding. If I do, I reckon I should lower the angle on that stem.

Ill probably buy a comfortable cruiser next season with the upright position, and convert this zaskar back to what its intended to be used for.

In its current circumstances, with the stem contraption and bent fork, I will definetely NOT engage in any serious trail riding at all, for the time being. By the way, any suggestions on what sort of fork I should get for my bike? I'll probably have to look for a 60mm. Or maybe a fixed fork. Do you mind helping?


[TE=Maelochs;21733885]I am sort of mystified, after reading your glowing review of your Zaskar and then seeing what you claim is the actual bike. That bike in the picture is suitable for sub-10mph parking-lot cruises and not much else. Sitting up that high with all the weight in the back .... you would be on your backside at the first serious hill, and the issue with sitting upright is that you have zero shock absorption.

When walking (which most of us do upright) the legs and hips take up most of the shock. If you are seated, that shock is delivered directly into the spine, which is Not evolved to take shocks vertically. You will beat up your lower back, crush your kidneys, and eventually rupture all your discs.

Leaning forward uses the muscles of the lower back and abdomen to stabilize the upper body, using the hips as a hinge, and if you ride correctly, with some actual pressure on the pedals, this takes a lot of the impact off the spine.

Your set-up is basically a fat-tire version of a 1960s Sting Ray---a bike horribly designed to do anything but sprint up to home-made jumps and cruise in parades.

You and I are about the same size with the same inseam. here is a proper 26" MTB: Sorry for the low-quality pic but it should give you an idea.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d8e7a5d774.jpg
Yes, I lean forward, and the weight gives the front end bite---with no weight on the front end the tire will just wash out laterally with any kind of speed ro anything but hardpacked earth or pavement.

It's a 30-pound full-suspension bike with a 1132 mm WB, 483 mm top tube, and 68.5/ 72.5 head- and seat tube angles. Chain stays are 425 mm. The FOX Float RL fork offers 140 mm of travel and still feels tighter, stiffer, and more responsive than the 80 mm I had on my Univega (which was more of a classic NORBA set-up.) I still love the idea of an XC race bike but the skill required to get the most out of one on technical trails ./.... nah. I like what i have.

I am not convinced you are serious about your bike, but if you are .... over time you will go through the same process as most other riders and bike designers. The original Repack bikes (first US MTBs) were old balloon-tire Schwinn cruisers with sprung seats and riser bars. (In fact one of the old Repack riders is a contributor to this site--quite an honor for us, IMO.) Over time, stems go shorter, bars got wider, BBs got higher, front suspension forks were stolen from scooters, then rear shocks, and so onward ....

Eventually, assuming you really want to ride off-road, you will discover that the proper tool for the job is the sort of bike shown in the various photos .... Not yours (sorry.) Of course, you can ride whatever you like, and ride however you like .... and hopefully enjoy it a ton, which to me is the point of the exercise ... but if you really want to get rolling off-road you will need to build some fitness, strengthen your core, drop your handlebars to be within shouting distance of the frame, and use your bke the way it was meant to be used.

You might not have the fitness or technique to do it now, but over time .... it is great to have goals, and great that you are liking the process of getting there .... but believe, you are only an egg.[/QUOTE]


Other than replacing that fork with the correct size, I assume I'll have to remove that stem riser. Or would straightening out my adjustable stem to like 20 degrees work fine?

Truthfully, I dont ride the trails much. I have it set up right now for sedate pavement riding and occasional fast gravel use. In its current state, i dont feel comfortable doing anything more than light trail riding..

I'm in very good physical shape. I weigh 220lb and my body fat is sub 15 percent. I used to be a personal trainer. I have decent experience with trail riding but obviously still lots of room for improvement in that regard.

I've a few MTBs from that era..ish. Here is a 94 Kona Hot where I swapped out the Judy fork for a CrabonCycles Exotic fork.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e2165c17b7.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7625487d06.png

Well any talk about 1990’s NORBA-esque XC geo - or any geometry goals intended by the frame designer - pretty much goes out the window with a setup like this.

BTW: whatever the original intent of GT’s “triple triangle” was, in reality it was just a visual cue to distinguish their frames. It makes zero difference in - or influence on - the bikes geometry. It also makes essentially zero difference in the ride.

If you enjoy the bike, then there is nothing to explain. Just enjoy it.

However if you are going to compare it to newer bikes, you really ought to read up on what has changed in MTB design (even hartails) in the 22 years since your bike was produced. Modern mtb geo (and I would include wheel size as part of that) is far better and far more versatile for off-road riding.

1990’s XC HTs like yours are versatile in the sense that they work better than modern ones as street bikes. Not surprising as both the bike geo and rider technique were still heavily influenced by road riding in the 90s.

What has changed over the past 20 years is that MTB designers have gotten a better grasp of what is needed for mtb, and along with that, riders have found new riding techniques better suited to MTB.

This thread is like a sourdough starter

it says on that website that the 42.5cm length fork corrects for a 80mm suspension fork.

It seems like my bike came with either a 63 or 80mm suspension fork. Will 425mm be a good size? Or do I need even smaller?

it’s been established that your GT is way too small for your body. If you have the original parts still, put them back on and sell/trade it for something bigger.

FWIW, I have plenty of fun riding road bikes, both vintage and new, in local State Park trails that’re mostly dirt with some roots & rocks and some good climbs and descents. Drop bars effectively function as your on-the-fly height adjusting stem idea, but are durability proven for nearly a century. I have yet to be passed by anyone on a bike with knobby tires in these trails.

That is one beautiful bit of machinery.

I fitted a new fork from an old rocky mountain commuter bike. Wasn't able to fit my stem riser because the steerer tube was cut to length. With a spacer underneath, I found it pretty comfortable.

The bike is very fast and smooth now. On pavement, the cornering grip is absurdly high. Im sure it will perform fantastic on less technical singletrack like this. I have to get used to the siginifucsntly faster and more sensrice steering.

The all purpose speed intentions of this bike fit in perfectly with what I need considering that there isn't much singletrack in my immediate area. Replacing this bike is something I will never do because I know that all I will find is something only marginally more comfortable. Ill add a second bike for singletrack only to the lineup eventually.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ae2928d507.jpg