Rocky II

Jeroen

Rigid Fork Service Centre
Registriert
22. August 2001
Reaktionspunkte
1
Ort
Niederlande
Okay, erst mal schuldigung das ich die unten stehende geschichte in Englisch schreibe. Es ist aber so viel um umzuwandeln nach Deutsch. Trotzdem muss ich dieses mit ihnen Teilen... :)

.... no, not that American dude, but someone, or rather something from more up north; Canada.

A few weeks ago a mysterious Rocky Mtn popped up on MTBR.com. Some of you might have seen it. Ths frame intrigued me. More so since Chris DeKerf fueled my passion for steel frames and Rocky was his former boss. Chris' work is strongly influenced by what he did at Rocky. Obviously I have some interest in older Rocky's. My '90 Summit was prove of that, and now this mysterious frame got my attention as well. The former owner, Bushpig @ mtbr was so kind to relay the frame to me, since it was too small for him anyway.

This proves to be a big puzzle. From the first moment I saw pictures of this frame, I wanted to know what modell it was. Pre '90s RM built roughly, two sort of frames; with the standard toptube and the models with the sloping toptube. The latter ones are the ones you don't see that often. Actually pre '90 RMs aren't often seen for that matter.

After some posts on forums, some emails the opinions where quite scathered. The previous owner had strong believes in it being a Tantalus. One of the two/three custom models RM offered (the other being the Thunderbolt and later the Wedge was added). Significant detail that made me wonder if this could a Tantalus was the way the seatpostbinder is positioned. From all Tantalus', Thunderbolts and Wedge's Ive seen sofar, all had this feature on the front side of the seattube, were as this one has it on the back. The '88 and '89 brochures also clearly reviel the Tantalus as the frame with the standard toptube, being brazed, rather than being TIG welded. The Thunderbolt was the sloping model which was brazed.

My guessings quickly turned towards the Blizzard or Avalanche, which later became the Equipe, since GT already had the Avalanche name for one of their frames. Both the Blizzard and the Avalanche are TIG welded and have the seatpostbinder on the back. Easy than, I hear you think. Wait a second though.. cause with the scares geo info I have on the pre '90s RM modells, I cannot find a 100% match with either the '88 or '89 Avalanche or Blizzard. Aside that, this frame has a pump peg on the toptube... clearly a custom feature that none of the Blizzards or Avalanches got.

Before we continue, a picture. Nope.. it isn't a beauty at this point. The paint is clearly not the original and put on it in a later stadium rather crudely. Structrually the frame is sound. No rust or dents. The only slight 'issue' is the somewhat bent right seatstay. So far my crude measurements haven't indicated the frame to be outa line. The stay could be straigthenend fairly easy I recon.

DSC04007a.jpg


Why I find this frame so interesting? Actually this is partly due Chris DeKerf. Im a big fan of his works and he influenced my taste in bikes on a large scale. Chris' is a former employee at RM, he worked there for some years. In his last years at the 'Everest' division, after which he started on his own. Till this day on his frames clearly have some reasemblence to what he built during his RM days. Most obiviously the seattube reinforment is still being used in slightly modified version.

DSC04010a.jpg


Chris makes them a bit shorter though.... ;)

Frame has U-brake posts under the chainstays and cable guiding via the downtube, a common feature of those days.

DSC04009a.jpg


DSC04016a.jpg



Yep, right seatstay is slightly bent.

DSC04014a.jpg


DSC04015a.jpg


For now the frame stands in the row of 'projects-to-do'. Sooner or later we'll get around restoring this frame and put it back where it belongs; on the trails. First and foremost we have to determine what frame this really is. Chris DeKerf has already prove to have some valuable information, but still no 100% assureance to what it should be. Small details differ... which makes it interesting and fun.
 

Anzeige

Re: Rocky II
Chris DeKerf schrieb:
Hello Jeroen.
I've taken a look at the photos and I am certain this frame was made in
Japan by the Toyo Frame Factory. I actually worked at the Toyo factory for a
month while I was working at Rocky so I am quite familiar with their
constructions methods. This is likely either a 'Blizzard' or a 'Avalanche'.
The give away is how the seatstays join the seat tube. This 'welded on the
side' type of construction was never done at Everest(Rocky's handbuild
division where I worked). The serial number is also machine stamped so all
the numbers and letters are perfectly straight. All the Everest handbuilts
had the individual numbers stamped in one at time. They are never quite
straight when you do it that way. I maintain this tradition with all Dekerf
frames as well. Sometimes I purposely put them a little crooked to show that
the numbers were stamped by hand!
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Chris


Chris' info is pretty valuable. Even other RM fanatics I briefly spoke knew this detail-difference to be very valuable to determine the origin.

'Everest-built', Canada:

6852Thunderbolt_1.jpg



Later versions from '90/'91 even had a wishbone on this point:

rocky_wedgeKlaus2.jpg



Modells above are respectively the Thunderbolt and the later Wedge, both of which where fillet brazed.

A Japanese Toyo frame, like mine, looks quite different on this point:

ca_1.jpg



Actually weird in a way to find a variation on what Chris said. Look at this picture and see this Wedge which clearly has the seatstays joint to the seattube in a way the Toyo frames had it. Than again; this is a Wedge, a custom modell, so the owner could have asked for this ofcourse.

Wedge11.jpg


Wedge12.jpg



In trying to pin point stuff by exclution Im pretty much convinced this should be a Blizzard. This actually supported by a small detail that I thoughed of yesterday evening. This frame has an ovalisation on its seattube, near the BB. This distinctive feature is what one finds on Tange tube sets. The Avalanche was completely constructed out of 'plain' 4130 CrMo, whereas the Blizzard had Tange tubes in the front traingle and 'plain' 4130 CrMo for the stays....

On a side note though; the geometry doesnt come close to what the standard Blizzard with slooping toptube should have. This frame clearly measures a 18" seattube. The '88 Blizzard only came in a 17,5", 19" and 20.5" size. In 1989 there was a 18" frame, but this had chainstays measureing 16.6", whereas this frame measures an unmistakeable whopping 435mm (17,1") on its chainstays....

Oh.. and the mysterious pump peg is a feature that I cannot find on any Blizzard or Avalanche Ive seen so far...

:roll:
 
Hi Jeroen,

that´s an interesting frame you got there. Thank you for posting Chris´s replies here, they were useful for me, too. What are your plans now with this one?

I tried finding out more about a frame I own since three years in this thread (which has another link to the pictures, but they´re also in my gallery): http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=144118

I also assume I own a Blizzard, however, there are some details that couldn´t be clealy verified, so I still don´t know the manufacturing date by now. Plus, it´s not verified, that it is a Blizzard or Rocky Mountain at all. But I do believe strongly it is, just from the sweet ride and bc it´s giving me a smile! There´s some soul in this one for sure.

Maybe you´d like to read my story also.

It has the side-mounted seatstays, but in a different way than yours. Just have a look and I´d love to hear your opinion.
 
Hi Jeroen, first of all - i dont know much about rockys so I just want to mention the following: we recently had a gt zaskar frame number in the gt board here, clearly stating it was a 1997 model but the original owner and first pruchaser proved by the bill that he bought it in 1996. what i want to say is simply - people change things and the manufacturing of our beauties wasnt so clean and elaborate and perfect as we tend to reckon from nowadays and our (often catalogue) knowledge. in fact at least some of the custom frame producers from back then did what ever came to their mind that day. However good luck on identifying this one - I truly believe you're going to uncover its whole history... , my suspicion is, its a mid model-change build. :) and a true beauty.
 
Hello,

Toyo Frame Factory ??????.........but sorry......NO WAY.......it`s a RM Blizzard or maybe an RM Avalanche.

Cause last week I got the chance to buy a MBA-Magazine from July 1988.......:)

Why I was so interested in buying this old stuff,..... cause there was two first test-reports inside, I wanted to read.........1.) the world first exclusive test of an TRIMBLE that was ever done.............2.) another test about the Brodie Romax ./. RM Avalanche.

And this last frame looks in details the same like Jeroen and my own one........that is seen on the pink-blue picture above.


C.U.
 
Hi Jeroen, first of all - i dont know much about rockys so I just want to mention the following: we recently had a gt zaskar frame number in the gt board here, clearly stating it was a 1997 model but the original owner and first pruchaser proved by the bill that he bought it in 1996. what i want to say is simply - people change things and the manufacturing of our beauties wasnt so clean and elaborate and perfect as we tend to reckon from nowadays and our (often catalogue) knowledge. in fact at least some of the custom frame producers from back then did what ever came to their mind that day. However good luck on identifying this one - I truly believe you're going to uncover its whole history... , my suspicion is, its a mid model-change build. :) and a true beauty.

I, not beeing an RM knower but a fan, would also say that it might be a mid Modell or a model where they ran out of tuber for one kind and just used the ones for the other. It also could be a custom where the owner wanted it to resemble a Blizzard but had another geometrie in mind. saying that the Chainstays are longer than usual make me believe that the later is the case. If someone is willing to pay for it they should be willing to make it, right?
On the other Hand you sill have nowadays mid-model Changes when a manufacturer realises during the model time that for instance the Tubes he used werent the best ones etc.
All in all not helpfull just some thoughts:D

Ciao
 
Zurück
Oben Unten