Rigid 26in, rim brake, 2x10 slx/xt, xc bike silly?

[thirdgenbird]

I currently have no mountain bike and kind of miss it. I've also got the opportunity to buy a late 90s stumpjumper m2 on the cheap (very cheap)

I know the smart thing is to ride it as is, but I've also wanted to see what modern MTB drivetrains are all about. The shadow+ slx stuff looks like a crazy value. I think I also like the charm (and weight) of a rigid bike.

Is a 26in rim brake rigid bike a crazy idea? The bike honestly wouldn't see a ton of miles, but I can't help but think it would be a great loaner or casual bike in addition to the occasional off-road jaunt.

[thirdgenbird]

The rigid fork I've got in mind would also open the door to a front disc.

[stien]

I ride 7s rigid stumpjumper on some gnarly stuff. I say go for it.

[thirdgenbird]

Originally Posted by stien

I ride 7s rigid stumpjumper on some gnarly stuff. I say go for it.

M2?

If so, will it fit a 2.4-2.5in tire?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by thirdgenbird

The rigid fork I've got in mind would also open the door to a front disc.

Depending on terrain it sees, remember that all 'rigid' bikes do have suspension, called arms and legs. The rigid and hence, simple, platform may work great for you and disc front, v rear is a great idea. Way back when, before RockShox and Manitou actually built a decent front suspension, some shocks were actually worse than rigid(remember the Scott Shock?)

So, I'd say ride on....

[pdmtong]

Unless real cheap means <$100 The only person who will end up happy in that transaction will be the seller. Yes it could work on dirt. If course. That's what we rode back then. But soooo many other choices now. I guess it's more budget driven than anything.

[stien]

Originally Posted by thirdgenbird

M2?

If so, will it fit a 2.4-2.5in tire?

Nay, earlier than that, and steel! I had an m4 I think or m5 and 2.5 was a no go. This one does 2.5 and you need it.

[JAGI410]

Not silly at all. I'd do 1x9 or 1x10 though with the fattest tire I could fit in the frame. The new narrow-wide chainrings really make 1x systems work well.

[thirdgenbird]

Originally Posted by pdmtong

Unless real cheap means <$100 The only person who will end up happy in that transaction will be the seller. Yes it could work on dirt. If course. That's what we rode back then. But soooo many other choices now. I guess it's more budget driven than anything.

I should be able to put the whole thing together for the price of a decent suspension fork. The cost of the bike itself is very small, most of the cost would be the slx bits.

Originally Posted by JAGI410

Not silly at all. I'd do 1x9 or 1x10 though with the fattest tire I could fit in the frame. The new narrow-wide chainrings really make 1x systems work well.

My original thought was 1x but it hardly costs any more to get an slx 2x setup than a zee setup. The big ring may also come in handy if I ride to the trails vs drive. I can always put the second ring and shifter in a box if I change my mind.

Does anyone make a 5 bolt wide/narrow that I could use with the specialized crank? That would cut cost.

[p nut]

Why not? You can always transfer the parts to another bike if you end up not liking it.

Which rigid fork? I'd probably get an older Surly 1x1 fork. Cheap, and canti/disc option. Also, gobs of room if you want to go 26x2.75 Dirt Wizard tires or even 650b front.

Those were great riding bikes. I had a 98 and 99 back in the day.

NW rings: http://raceface.com/components/rings...g-narrow-wide/

[thirdgenbird]

I was looking at the 1x1 fork or the gusset jury. Both have canti and disc mounts but I'm a sucker for segmented forks. It almost sounds like the low ACH on the gusset fork is correct for the frame.

That was sort of my thought. I'm basically in a little more than an slx group and I could swap to a 650b bike if I use it a lot.

The only 5 bolt raceface rings are 110bcd. Guessing the stock cranks are 94bcd. I would be stuck buying cranks either way so I'm thinking about going slx to open up my options down the road.


How wide of tire can a safely use on the original mavic rims? Guessing they are not extremely wide but I thought a rear 2.4-2.5 and front 2.75 would be fun.

[Netdewt]

I, or course, am interested in this discussion as well. I bought a 1994 Stumpjumper M2 yesterday for $35 (with 7s wheels and other misc parts). The plan is to set up single speed with studded tires for winter duty and go from there.

I had a 26" 1998 Rockhopper which I sold last year. I hadn't ridden it for many years, then tried. It was so uncomfortable on MTB trails I sold it the next week. Maybe I should have kept it for winter, but it was super heavy.

After the Rockhopper experience, I thought for sure I must have a suspension fork, but maybe it doesn't make sense for this build.

[p nut]

I actually had some 2.5" Nevegals up front when I had it (on the stock Mavic rims). I didn't have any issues but not sure if I would go much wider than that.

I could have sworn the cranks were 110, but it has been a while. Here are some 94bcd: http://www.blackspire.com/qs/category/83/5948/0/0

[thirdgenbird]

I guess they could be 110. By the time I buy a $60 chainring, I can't help but think I should just get a $100 crankset and bb. We will see...

Nate, you would be more than welcome to try out the manitou pro fork if I end up getting the bike. Not ideal for winter commuter use, but it would probably be fine for trail use.

[p nut]

I think it makes more sense for a new crankset as well.

Also, I believe 94 Stumpjumpers had 1" HT. Either way, those elastomers in the fork are probably shot anyway.