gorillimo

Mine's becoming one of my favorite bikes ever. Comfortable, stable, just feels good to ride. And can be made into whatever you need. Here's my version......

Kapusta

I find it interesting that both the pics in this thread of 1990s Specialized bikes, they are set up for road/commuter use, NOT for single-track mountain biking.

prj71

Exactly.

Why anyone would want to take a 22 year old MTB out on single track trails baffles me. Unless for some reason you like getting beat up.

Many more comfortable options available. Even the lowest level base model Specialized MTB is light years ahead of those things.

prj71

Suspension forks are now light years over what was available back then.

Even cheap suspension is better than rigid if you are riding the bike off road.

Obviously you haven't been on a new MTB lately.

himespau 

Which is why I asked what the OP wanted to use the bike for. You just jumped in with the assumption he was going to take it out on single track and told him his bike was only fit for the garbage. Maybe he, like many of the posters above just wanted to take it out on the roads and didn't know better than posting here rather than a different forum.

Kapusta

Seriously. Unless you just want the challenge of doing things old school, or it is all you have.

Heck even a bike half that age (from 2007) is light years ahead.

A modern steel hardail is going to have MUCH more capable geometry for singletrack, much better cockpit setup for singletrack, a suspension fork that is so much better in every way that it should not even be called the same thing, brakes that are much better, and tires that are light years better.

If someone has more fun riding on a bike from 1990 or 1996, more power to them. Heck, I enjoy an extra challenge sometimes to liven things up, which is why I have an on-and-off flirtation with rigid singlespeed.

However, if the OP was asking about “upgrades” I am going to assume he was looking for equipment that makes trail riding easier, not harder.

Kapusta

Yes, I do make the assumption that the mountain biking forum is about mountain biking, unless otherwise stated.

himespau 

I often do as well, but, like many people, I grew up in the late 80's/90's when mountain bikes were really the only option available for just about any riding. Now I know about bikes for different purposes and have a road bike and a touring/commuting bike too, but, for a lot of people who grew up when I did, a mountain bike (and often one they wanted as a kid) is the only type of bike they know. Then they say, hey, this is a mountain bike I should ask questions about it in the mountain bike forum when many of them who just want to get the thing working again so they can ride it on the roads or mup trails with their kids or to get some fitness back because their doctor told them they need to be more active. Many of these people would be better suited to post in the general cycling, mechanics, or even classic and vintage forums, but they don't know that and post here.

carlosponti

I just couldn't afford a new bike at the time I got started and didnt want it to be an excuse why I wasn't on our local trails. I rode the mid nineties Fuji with rigid fork for almost a year before I got the money to buy the 2018 Fuji.

Kapusta

That bike is just plain freakin' gorgeous.

gorillimo

The one I built up is a little big for trails and made a better allarounder. But I like it so much that I wanted a smaller one for riding tougher trails. Just found it’s smaller twin brother on CL tonite. Should be a great single track bike. Gonna buy it for the rough stuff! It’s gonna be fun having the choice......

prj71

Some nice looking commuter bikes there...

Kapusta

Frankly, I don't think you even know much about newer hardtails, as evidenced by the fact that you did not realize they are still widely available in steel.

Hey, if you like steep head angles, short top tubes, long stems, and narrow bars on technical singletrack, have at. But, pretty much everybody else that has spent some time on newer designs (slacker head angles, longer top tubes, shorter stems, wider bars) has moved on.

Geometry was what it was in the 1990's because we did not know any better. Seriously, in 1995, how many people had been riding for more than 10 years? Not many. Geo (and MTB design in general) was still in its early childhood and being driven by xc racing, which was at that time taking all of it's geometry and fitting cues from road bikes.

Which is why mtbs from the 1990s make such good street bikes: the geo and fit is based on road bikes. Yes, those old bikes are pretty good for double-track and gravel roads, so maybe you are better off comparing them to the new crop of "gravel" bikes, which is what they are far more similar to.

If you think this is some current fad that is cyclical, I would think again. Things have been moving in this direction pretty steadily for almost two decades. Every time head angles get a little slacker, top tubes a little longer, stems a little shorter, and bars a little wider, people start fretting that it's gone too far..... and then they try it and like it. Even racers on short travel XC bikes (the last to adopt anything new) have moved on to the newer geos. I guarantee you that if any of the people who designed your 1990s hard tail are still riding hard tails on singletrack, they are riding ones with modern geo.

You are right that "newer is not always better". But sometimes it is. And in this case, the past 20-25 years of people riding bikes on dirt have taught us a lot about mtb design and geometry.

Kapusta

You cared enough about whether new bikes were steel to use it as your main point in explaining why you did not like them.

Sorry, but you did not know.
This little nugget is another indication how little you have been paying attention for the past 20 years. It is very easy to dismiss that which you are unfamiliar with.

The current trend in geo was NOT pushed by marketing departments. It was pushed from the ground up. Pretty much all the major players had to be dragged kicking and screaming into lowering bottom brackets, slackening head angles, and shortening stems.

Some new trends were pushed primarily by marketers and the major players (15mm TA, tapered head tubes, and whatever this month's bb or rear dropout standard is). Others have been the market reacting to what riders were asking for or taking it upon themselves to kludge together and modify (slack head angles, wide range cassettes, lower bbs, dropper posts, 2x drivetrains, then 1x drivetrains, wide rims). If you have are out of the loop (which you apparently are) then it can be easy to confuse the two. If you had been on boards like MTBR from 2000 to 2010, you would see actual riders pushing for these things, finding ways to do it themselves, and some even starting small businesses to fill these niches. Then the big players and marketing caught up.

Or you can just bask in your nearly non-existent knowledge of the past two decades of mtb developement, while blurting "its all marketing" cliches.

rhopper

If I was you, I would build the bike the way you want it for however your riding style is, BUT make sure you don't damage any of the take off OEM parts, just in case you change your mind.and want to put it back original. Anyhow that's what I did on my 1995 Rockhopper Comp FS.
below is what mine look like taken out of storage, before I cleaned it up. Now it looks like new. I upgrade the front derailleur to Shimano STX, the rear derailleur to Shimano Deore XT, shifters & cables to Shimano Deore LX Dual SIS, brakes, stem, & handlebars. Also depends if your doing the upgrades yourself or if you have to pay someone else. Just have fun. Good Luck

dminor 

I have been away from this thread for a while...it's probably a good thing, haha.

I love threads like this; it gives a chance for all the retro-grouches to crawl out of the woodwork and post up their ancient "mountain bikes" (that have almost invariably been converted to recreational path-bikes or commuters) and wax about how great-riding they are with their 10-pound Brooks saddles and 120mm stems