[vintagemtbr]

Hey guys. Long time no see.
I just picked up a Nashbar 4000X elevated chainstay bike,about 1990 I think.As I was checking out the bike I started wondering who came up with the design for elevated chainstay mountain bikes? When did they show up? I think they started showing up around 1990 but I'm sure there were earlier examples.
As for the bike,I haven't taken it out for a ride on the trail yet. I know that the e-stay bikes had their good and bad points. I just want to know the history of these bikes. Thanks.

 

[FairfaxPat]

E-Stay bikes became popular around 1990 and they hung around for at least three or four more years, if not more. I own a 1991 FUNK E-Stay and it is very stiff. The last list I saw of bike makers that made an E-Stay ran over 25 different brands-some good, some junk. The only advantage I can see with this design is no chain suck + you can remove the chain without breaking it.

 

[Zanetti]

Yeti Ultimate and the Nishiki Alien were some of the earliest models -- 1988/1989.

The good:

Chainsuck eliminated, chainwrap results in no frame damage.

Ability to run whatever chainring setup/crank length/Q-factor you wanted without frame limitations.

Super-short chainstays with no tire clearance issues. The very first "Fatties Fit Fine" design.

The Bad:

Frame flex at the BB and dropouts. I broke three Aliens before resorting back to a traditional frame.

 

[Fillet-brazed]

Yeti Ultimate and the Nishiki Alien were some of the earliest models -- 1988/1989.

The good:

Chainsuck eliminated, chainwrap results in no frame damage.

Ability to run whatever chainring setup/crank length/Q-factor you wanted without frame limitations.

Super-short chainstays with no tire clearance issues. The very first "Fatties Fit Fine" design.

The Bad:

Frame flex at the BB and dropouts. I broke three Aliens before resorting back to a traditional frame.

additions for the bad:

heavier
weaker
still had the same (mostly) Q factor limitations due to crank arms hitting stays
shorter stays made them handle worse for everything but climbing (IMO)

 

[Zanetti]

additions for the bad:

heavier
weaker
still had the same (mostly) Q factor limitations due to crank arms hitting stays
shorter stays made them handle worse for everything but climbing (IMO)

All true.

 

[ewbee]

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/xframe/valkyrieec.html

SEE 1989..........
http://www.yetifan.com/the_history_of_yeti.html

 

[da'HOOV]

nothing without pics

posted before..all I could find right now...they may be weak and flexy, but they are still cool

 

[da'HOOV]

a couple more

can't find a pic of my Haro Extreme...but heres a few more :thumbsup:

 

[First Flight]

July 1990

 

[yo-Nate-y]

Brave had e-stay bikes in '89---the Warrior.

I have two. I really like how they ride on twisty trails.Climbing and acceleration feel noticeably different.
Actually kind of feels like a unicycle sometimes, with the rear wheel tucked in so tight. Really fun woods bikes.

 

[da'HOOV]

found the Haro

I think this is it...

 

[gsomtb]

I had the 3 color neon fade Haro Extreme in 90.....warranteed and the black replced it.

Anyone have pics of the neon?

 

[vintagemtbr]

The 4000X does have a short chainstay at 15.5 inches. I figured it will be a good climber.The bike is heavy.Pretty much agree with everyone else about the good and bad.
I had the same Haro Extreme (same color) like Stan's bike but it cracked just under the down tube.But then I was a fat ass when I broke it. I have another frame but I'm not going to bother building it.
Hey I appreciate the photos guys.

 

[dirtdrop]

1991 carbon steel mix.

 

[Boy named SSue]

Found the Haro
I think this is it...

Would it have taken you more or less time to find the actual bike?

 

[ae111black]

not at all VRC but mine none the less '08 prophet!

 

[da'HOOV]

Would it have taken you more or less time to find the actual bike?

oh...you very funny man ..but less. I know where it is, getting to it is the problem, kinda buried :thumbsup:

 

[PMK]

I had a 1992 Alpinestars Almega DX.

In regards to the good and bad comments, I found that bike to work very well. The handling seemed very good, the short stays gave good mechanical grip for the rear tire and the 7005 aluminum seemed to put the power to the ground with minimal flex. Also, the frame angles had the head angle around 70 as opposed to the conventional 71. This for me, let the bike typically setup for turns with a bit of steering input from the rear tire. In other words, the bike had a feel similar to a dirt bike under acceleration where the rear tire would slightly step out.

I will say that at the time I thought the oversize handle bars and what seemed to be a longer top tube with the slacker headtube angle was odd. However, now the current handlebars are all oversize like the Alpinestars of the early 90's, Headtubes on many bikes are slackened, Plus this long top tube concept seems popular.

Thing that killed my frame, the silly non clamp type front der, which they repaired, but ultimately the downtube cracked just below the gusset,

They did warranty it for a newer double diamond True Temper OXIII frame that is now my urban build with all the old DX sruff, except for some LX brakes.

PK

 

[DeeEight]

Might as well throw in a few of mine...

Top Image Neptune, basically the old rocky cirrus jigs were sold from a japanese maker to a taiwan one, and they used traditional seatstays instead of a monostay but otherwise its the same dimensions of tubes, geometry and layout.

My alpinestars Ti Mega, whose frame currently hangs in my basement with a huge crack thru the right chainstay above the dropout.

A Trimble Inverted frame I used to own...

 

[DeeEight]

Incidently, E-stays on the drive side make an excellent way to run a belt-drive, without needing a split dropout assembly to change the damn belt.