[TheBigWoo]

Ugliest bikes ever but.... I hated the early ones, but by 1997-8 the aluminum machines were really evolving into nice bikes. I have to admit that I like my '98 Fisher Joshua X0; It has the sweet remote thumb rear shock lockout which to me was a superior invention on somebody's part to prevent power transfer loss/Pogo....

I can't speak for the Carbon Fibre rides, but think that the aluminum Y-Framed MTB's will be Classic/Vintage someday...
Do ya' think they will ever make the C&V staus?

Discuss......

 

[TheBigWoo]

... Who else is riding a Y ??

Feel free to post some photos.....

 

[wv_bob]

OK I'll play ... a friend of mine had a Joshua back when they were new

There were two things I liked about it -

1. He bought all XTR and RaceFace parts, and gave me the parts I took off in return for hanging the new parts for him. I still use the brake levers and shifters off that bike.

2. The owner was guaranteed to over-ride it to the point of having a full-on yard sale every time I rode with him. Many a good laugh was had at his expense on that bike.

 

[MendonCycleSmith]

I'll toss in too.

An observation? Power loss doesn't really happen with a URT. Since the whole drivetrain is on the back end, it can't. Bobbing? Certainly

Be forewarned, not a lot of love for that bike, period. Here in VRC land, probably even less than the population average. Plus it's kinda new....

They do make cool guitars though

 

[mainlyfats]

a. I don't buy mass-production "collectibility" as a concept because it seems to go hand in hand with non-use and its value is never really appreciated.

b. No Fisher not made by a guy name Tom would be worth the square-footage it would take to store it to me.

 

[TheBigWoo]

I hear what you guys are saying..... But mark my words, 20, maybe 40 years from now the Y will be back. What's old becomes new baby!

I am in a very tiny minority in that I like these from an Industrial Design point of view......That and I am getting bored w/ my MB-2 and Japanese Stumpjumpers.....

The Rockies are taking their toll on the old Warhorse, but I'll see if I can make it last another 20 years.......

1998 Joshua X0.....

[URL="https://

[/URL]

[URL="https://

[/URL]

[URL="https://

[/URL]

 

[Joe Steel]

What I like about the "Y":





Lunch



:thumbsup:

 

[Joe Steel]

I hear what you guys are saying..... But mark my words, 20, maybe 40 years from now the Y will be back. What's old becomes new baby!

I am in a very tiny minority in that I like these from an Industrial Design point of view......That and I am getting bored w/ my MB-2 and Japanese Stumpjumpers.....

The Rockies are taking their toll on the old Warhorse, but I'll see if I can make it last another 20 years.......

1998 Joshua X0.....

https://

https://

https://

And that thing there ^^^^ is a POS

No offense....

 

[MendonCycleSmith]

I like these from an Industrial Design point of view......

You should check out the Cannondale Super V's then, better, more durable design, and they actually ride well too. The whole URT ride quality thing just kills it for me. Not saying you shouldn't love your bike if you do, I'm not that kind of guy

 

[DeeEight]

The reason an URT bobs is because well, riders move around on the bike... all riders do this... some worse than others though (I've seen hardtail's that looked like they were bobbing). Most mountain bikers instinctively float over the saddle on bumpy sections of trail, alternating being on and off the saddle. That weight shifting changes the sprung and unsprung mass of the swingarm and how the suspension reacts to bumps. So the bobbing you get on urt's isn't related to the drivetrain, its all the rider's fault. A pedal-platform shock would reduce that problem the same as it does on other rear suspension designs if it bothers you that much.

As to the Super V riding better, ok maybe in some situations it does. It also locks out in practically every gear though given its pivot location. URT's never lockout (unless you flip a lever on the shock) because there's no chain forces acting against the swingarm. You can stiffen the suspension by standing (and thus increase the unsprung mass of the swingarm that a bump has to overcome before the shock does any absorbing) but it'll still move in such a position and still ride better than a hardtail.

As it happens, I had a friend over lastnight to look at a Bullit frameset I'm selling, and he saw my Catamount (which I built up as a singlespeed) and remarked that if I ever sold it, he'd be very interested in it since it has more of an all-mountain trailbike feel/look to it that say, his current hardtail does (which he'd probably then convert to a singlespeed).

 

[themanmonkey]

b. No Fisher not made by a guy name Tom would be worth the square-footage it would take to store it to me.

You do know that Teesdale wasn't the only builder contracted to build Fishers right? Some serious players who are still around contract built them too. Tom's are only the easiest to identify.

 

[Guest]

I hear what you guys are saying..... But mark my words, 20, maybe 40 years from now the Y will be back.

looking at the wheel qr skewers i'm a little worried that you might not be around anymore then. the lockout cable routing could be improved too...

 

[wv_bob]

What I like about the "Y":

Lunch

:thumbsup:

I don't think I've heard that one since high school

 

[JeanPoutine]

I've never met a URT bike that I like - the only things noteworthy about the y-bike design are -

1) They were the first really successful, mass produced full suspension bike.

2) They paved the way for every Wal-Mart/Target/K-Mart/Costco full suspension bike out there - I guess you could say that they were the prototype for the crapola that is out there tricking people into thinking they are riding a real suspension bike.

 

[Joe Steel]

I don't think I've heard that one since high school

Yeah -- I'm mature like that...

 

[gm1230126]

I've never met a URT bike that I like - the only things noteworthy about the y-bike design are -

1) They were the first really successful, mass produced full suspension bike.

2) They paved the way for every Wal-Mart/Target/K-Mart/Costco full suspension bike out there - I guess you could say that they were the prototype for the crapola that is out there tricking people into thinking they are riding a real suspension bike.

Jean I think you need to reexamine #1) above. I think there were other full suspension designs that were mass produced and much more "successful" at the same time the Trek Y was out there and most all of them were better designs an sold more in numbers.

 

[iamthewalrus]

[URL="https://

[/URL]

Holy moly! Did I just stumble across a website dedicated to fugly bikes? So much for searching out classic bikes.

 

[da'HOOV]

I find it mildly amusing (and sad) at the number of brand new accounts (puppet) that are appearing and have nothing to offer except ...well, let me think.....no make that nothing to offer period. Grow up guys.

 

[da'HOOV]

Holy moly! Did I just stumble across a website dedicated to fugly bikes? So much for searching out classic bikes.

Yup...nothing here for you...move along....:thumbsup:

 

[JeanPoutine]

gm - If you were at races in 94-96 (the heyday of the Y-bike) you would probably agree with me at the raging commercial success of the Y-bike design. The bike EASILY out-numbered any other suspension 3 to 1, if not more on any given day.

Which bikes are you referring to, outnumbering the Y-Bike? They were relatively affordable, they were carbon and, at the time, they were one of the more reliable suspension platforms. That doesn't mean they rode very well...suspension was in its infancy...

The bike was a massive commercial success. It did, however, start to lose its appeal when structurally reliable, efficient pedalling designs started hitting the market, and the market shifted away from XC...

Mr. Hoov, I am hoping you are not including me in your comment, as I have offered a relevant side of this conversation (commonly referred to as an opinion) and some historical perspective to the mix.