Comments on: Paramount Buell SASS Bicycle For Sale

By: john Again

john Again — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:58:46 +0000

Since I like finding things to read:
MTBs have come a long way since 1992. The biggest improvement is front fork travel. I wasnt aware of 4″ of travel until I called for a Crosstrac brochure in 1994. They had 4″ front and rear, and the brochure mentioned that they had tried 6″ and 8″ prototypes but that 4″ was the max for efficient pedaling. I thought that 4″ was going to remain the limit and that eventually other bikes might be adjustable beyond 4″ or have progressive or 2 stage travel that would pedal like 4″ until a big hit.
When long travel bikes came out the bottom brackets were high and many were even more heavy than the S.A.S.S.
I ran a Judy DH until adjustable travel allowed me to try 130mm and still be able to use 90mm.
This has been a major improvement; 90mm doesnt bob; 130mm does but is plush.
The other big change is that 30lb range is more acceptable. Unfortunately the S.A.S.S. was too heavy (I think the frame is about 8 lb; I weighed it years ago) Waterford discontinued it because they couldn’t bring the weight down without sacrificing durrability.
Today the S.A.S.S. is no longer too heavy, and wouldn’t change the weight much to increase travel with a different shaped pivoting linkage.
Disk brakes have become more common and are an improvement for most situations. Didn’t the ’91 gold or silver go to a bike w/ disc (and road drop bars)? I think disc have improved since then but I didn’t use them back then. Maguras work well they can hold mud, change with puddles, and throw you easier. The mud colecting is the only problem on the rear as it is easy to lock.
I went from canti’s to Maguras so I never tried V brakes. I’ve been suprised when people believe that a rim break can’t control speed or lock a wheel especially the rear. (i’m not accusing anyone hear). I’d prefer a disk or drum especialy in the front (I don’t think the drum is worth the weight unless your going to use it for long drags.
I’d love to see the ’91 downhill video but ’92 is as far back as I could find.

By: john

john — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:34:55 +0000

I looked at a picture of a giant glory dh which would not fit the design of the patent. Marc Muller and Eric Buell patented this design for use on either a bicycle or motorcycle. …”A tubular shock absorber assembly is supported on the down tube and has a spring urging a coupler portion thereof in a forward and upward direction. A double-pivoted link is pivotally connected between the forward ends of the chain stays and a bell crank assembly which is pivotally connected to the underside of the frame, and in turn, connects the double-pivoted link to the coupler portion of the shock absorber assembly”… …”In one embodiment, the shock absorber assembly is supported on the forward side of the down tube; in another embodiment, the shock absorber assembly is inside an open-rear-ended down tube.”
This is probably easier to do on a motorcycle. The frame would need to be redesigned so that the bottom bracket would not get in the way.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:41:23 +0000

So you’d end up with a shock in the same location as the Giant Glory?

By: john

john — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:46:16 +0000

The shock is a is a multi-pound chunk of metal that can probably take damage that will beer can an aluminum frame, and might damage it’s steel frame before failing. I’ve never hit the thing substantial with it, but I usually try not to destroy my crank arms or wedge something in between the frame and the wheel. you can damage the linkage which extends beneath the chain ring. It looks sturdier than a standard chain ring and moves out of the way under compression, but I wouldn’t want it hitting anything harder than bark or a rotting log. The frame heavy for an expensive early 90′s bike. It weighed around 31 lbs with that light fork and xt parts.

The pivot is above the chain so that the top of the chain gets longer as the swing arm moves with larger front gears this gets some canceling from the rear moving up.
I’ve been riding these so I probably don’t notice as much as I would have in 1992. There is a difference, but I only notice the effects on pedaling when in to tall of gear for my speed. Stomping short gears like a 20t front pulls the swing arm down which may cost energy and may increase traction depending who’s talking. The Bike needs to have a stiff enough spring. With a black spring (200 lbs?) the suspension is stable for me at around 190lb. With the gray spring (160lbs?) the suspension is to noticeable and the rebound dampening can limit extension of the arm.

I like the braking design flaw. Usually the force of decelerating the rear wheel doesn’t squat the rear noticeably except in a sudden high speed lock of the rear . Compressing the suspension during wheel lock may have been more of a problem with old bikes having less travel, or a complaint to support some designs.
I like the design, and the shock location. It is very latterly stiff, and the brick is lower on the bike.
The patent for the design also covers a variant with the shock inside the lower frame. Most people comment of the shocks location so if a newer version was ever built by Waterford, that might ease customers minds.

By: kneeslider

kneeslider — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:17:50 +0000

pghcyclist, nothing to delete and I’m not angry, I was honestly wondering what you thought I misrepresented. (Honest questions and debate help everyone. This is neither politics nor a flame war, just discussion.)

You may want to rethink your latest statement, “the pressure diffencial between the two sides of the damper looks the same weather its in extension or compression.”

How a shock acts in each direction is highly dependent on internal valving. There is much more in there than a simple washer in fluid.