[Darth onkey]

Thanks for the info.
I'll check that out when I get home. Any guesses as to what size forks I need on that?

 

[mward]

You'd need a rigid fork with no suspension correction, since it originally had no suspension.

 

[robinmiller]

Yep.. that was the M2 'sister' model to my Prestige version. Rigid, with no suspension correction.

 

[SanAnMan]

1994 or '95 had the 1 1/8" steer tube

I may be wrong but I remember that it was '95, that the 1 1/8" steer tube was used. All others before were 1".

 

[mward]

I may be wrong but I remember that it was '95, that the 1 1/8" steer tube was used. All others before were 1".

Yes, you're wrong. My 93 has a 1 1/8" steerer tube.

 

[Darth onkey]

mward You Da Man

Thanks, nembers were easy to find with your help. Was the guy I got this from an idiot for putting on the Manitou fork?

 

[mward]

Well it depends. In that pic there I'm running an 80mm fork and the bike was designed for what, 45mm of travel? I had a 100mm fork on it once and had it set to sag a little more than usual and frankly it handled fine. You just have to finesse it around more in the turns but it wasn't a chopper like some people would have you believe. Now I'm riding a bike with a 72 deg head angle and that doesn't bother me that much either. Maybe I'm an oaf but it doesn't seem to affect my riding. Our trails are very twisty here too, lots of tight turns.

If you want suspension, putting a fork on there that'll crank down to 63 mm of travel probably wouldn't make much of a handling difference.

 

[Metachemical]

I've got a 95 Stumpjumper FS M2, black with grey. I love this bike, I rode it up until last week when I got a Kona Explosif frame. I put a 80mm fork on it and it was unrideable, or else I would be on it right now. It will make a nice restoration project, as I kept most of the parts that were originally on it.

 

[mward]

Interesting, it would appear that 'unrideable' is largely a matter of personal style. I don't find the extra front end height or slacker head tube associated with a longer fork objectionable, I guess others do.

 

[Metachemical]

By "unrideable" I mean it could not possibly be riden. The front end pulled side to side, making steering almost impossible.

 

[Metachemical]

I find it strange that your 93 will ride fine with an 80mm fork, but my 95 is unrideable? Anybody have any ideas?

 

[fatchanceti]

SN Location

Where are they on the M2 Stumpjumpers? Most of my bikes have them on the bottom of the BB shell, but I don't see it there on my wife's 96 or 97 Stmpy Frame...

FCTi

 

[mward]

Read post #20.

 

[Dhorn33]

I have always wanted a Stumpjumper and one has come up on my local Craigslist for sale that I can buy for $175. It appears to be the exact same 96 model as shown at the beginning of this post but it has a Rock Shox Judy that is branded as a Future Shock? Is this a decent deal or should I pass?

I was planning to replace the STX brakes and LX shifters with XT m737 stuff (v-brakes). and swap the STX on to another frame I have to sell for around the same price so the bike should be almost free when I get done. Thoughts?

 

[logbiter]

I have always wanted a Stumpjumper and one has come up on my local Craigslist for sale that I can buy for $175. It appears to be the exact same 96 model as shown at the beginning of this post but it has a Rock Shox Judy that is branded as a Future Shock? Is this a decent deal or should I pass?

I was planning to replace the STX brakes and LX shifters with XT m737 stuff (v-brakes). and swap the STX on to another frame I have to sell for around the same price so the bike should be almost free when I get done. Thoughts?

price sounds a bit steep.. what's the rest of the component spec? steel or M2?
If it's the carbon fiber judy, you can offload it for a bit of change and get a better fork, assuming it's functional.
more likely that it's the future shock that's a mag20/21... if so, I'd offer a bit less.
IMHO- the m2 is a good rider, if on the stiff side, the steel model has a bit more cache for most of us here, and more comfy for long rides.

 

[Dhorn33]

A crappy pic from the ad is below. I don't know if the frame is steel or m2 but it has LX shifter/brake levers, Specialized Cranks, XT rear derailler, STX brakes and that is about all I know from my phone conversation with the owner. I think he bought it new and doesn't know much about it but claims to have paid $1700 for it new but I think that is a bit of an exageration. More thoughts?

 

[Rumpfy]

If it's STX, doubtful it's an FSX fork on there.


Offer $100-125 cash at best. You'll spend way more trying to upgrade the rest of the spec to XT.

You could probably find a complete bike with better parts for less than you'd spend on that bike + upgrading.

 

[Dhorn33]

Looking at the pic and the brochures online it almost has to be that S-works Rock Shox FSX fork? It sure looks like it to me - but I will find out in an hour or so. It would help explain his saying he paid $1700 for it new I think?

The bike was listed for $275 and I already offered him $150 for it. He came back with $175 so I guess I can look at it and keep trying. There are some lights on it too that I can sell to recoup some of the cost.

What is more desirable - the m2 or the steel bike?

 

[Rumpfy]

Does kind of look like an FSX. Hard to say. If it is, then it's worth it for you to buy.

If not, then he way over paid for a full STX'ed Stumpy at $1700.


As for M2 vs. ...say a steel S-Works, it'll depend on who you ask.

 

[Dhorn33]

Well I went and bough the bike. It is a 96 Stumpjumper steel base model with XT rear der., LX front, Strongarm cranks, LX shifter/brakes (these must have been swapped in for the stock Grip Shifts), Mavic 221 rims with LX hubs and DT Swiss spokes, Specialized Tires, stem and seat. Oh - and it has a carbon fiber Rock Shox FSX fork! The guy also threw in a Nightsun Team Max headlight setup. I am pretty happy and will start working on it over the weekend.