DorkDisk

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.

Kapusta

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.

Darth Lefty 

This thread is like a sourdough starter

Moisture

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?

hsuBM

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.

Maelochs

That is one beautiful bit of machinery.

Moisture

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.

Maelochs

^That looks a lot more stable.

Nothing wrong with a high-bar cruiser. It is just that the style of bike is very limited in its uses. But for relaxed cruising on paved surfaces, if you want your bars at shoulder-level, go for it.

The bike with the rigid fork looks like a much better commuter (to me) because it looks a lot more stable and responsive---lower center of gravity, weight better divided between the wheels.

For me commuting is riding in areas where there are more cars than I would ever want around me on most rides. I commuted for decades, and cars are no problem---but i'd rather ride on roads where cars are rarer. But when I had to go to work, to the stores, to classes, the the laundromat---I had to be on major roads a lot. And for that I want a bike which responds quickly but doesn't get upset easily. The bike in the early photos looks a little top-heavy and rear-haevy

Moisture

Actually, I still leaned forward over the bike even with the super tall stem. It wasn't nearly as upright and rear heavy as you may imagine. I think I got it just about for most use cases - but the overly long and bent fork threw whatever balance advantage I had right out the window. If I still had the stem riser, I could simply lower the angle on the adjustable stem before hitting the trails and id have quite a versatile setup. Even with the stem all the way up it was slightly biased towards leaning forward and racy.

Now, I had to take out one of the spacers below the stem because the steerer tube is barely long enough, and its not that comfortable. While the new fork certainly.makes up for this on pavement, im leaning forward too much over the front axle to the point where even trying to lift the front wheel (instead of letting the suspension do the front fork do the work for you) just doesnt feel balanced at all.

I actually replaced my chain before this, because I was using an 8 speed chain. Bad idea. The new chain in itself made a huge difference with speed and smoothness.

plus, I need longer cranks. Don't know how i will find 185mm cranks, but power trasnfer is definetely limited particularly when im pedalling out of the saddle.

With a new rigid fork with a longer steerer tube to fit spacers, the longer cranks, and perhaps lowering the seat slightly this bike will fit me about perfectly.

As for the handling, razor sharp.

Moisture

Here is my new bike, if anyone is interested. A 1980 Norco Monterey. 63.5CM frame.