Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: MBA VF2 Review

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    MBA VF2 Review

    Saw the review in the July issue of MBA.
    They basically called it a trail bike instead of cross country racer. Had some things they liked and disliked. Called the build kit an eccentric mix of components. Bike weight came in at 29 lbs with XTR components and Talas RLC 15QR. They mentioned access to the propedal on the RP23 is a long reach and that it would be needed often due to pedal bob. The most fun had was descending. The rear was active during braking and the stem, bars and fork made the handling terrific.
    Unless its a bike they have said is their favorites, I can never tell if they like the bikes or not. Go figure. I haven't ridden a VF2 so can't comment. Any VF2 riders seen the review and want to chime in.

  2. #2
    Flying Goat
    Reputation: mrpercussive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,330
    well....... it is MBA.........

  3. #3
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    Well, I live in Mexico so probably I wonīt be able to have the july edition in my hands for at least 2 weeks.
    I usually buy the magazine because as a novice, I like to read everything concerned to this hobby (thatīs how I get to know Chumba), but my friends who are more experienced in this, told me MBA is pretty much an advertinsing magazine and that the manufacturers pay them to test their bikes and they write a review.
    Anyway, if someone could send me the article (via PDF or whatever) I would appreciatte it, in the meanwhile, I will tell you this: Today I tested my VF2 for the first time... and I couldnīt be happier. Iīll write more about this in the thread of my VF2.
    Regards

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    238
    I can see why they call the VF2 a trail bike.. I use my XCL, a "trail bike" to downhill all over BC. Most recently, Mount Seven...or the site of the Psychosis race as it's otherwise known as.

    They're all trails, some go up...some go down.

  5. #5
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain me the difference between a XC and a trail bike?
    thanks

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    179
    Is there any difference in the suspension design/set up for the XCL and VF2? I don't remember any comments about pedal bob in MBA's XCL review from a couple of years ago.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Marco
    Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain me the difference between a XC and a trail bike?
    thanks
    My definition is: an xc bike rider loves to climb and descends adequately. He wants a bike that is a very efficient quick ascender and slices and dices on singletrack. And fairly light (for me, that's under 28 lbs, under 27 lbs hopefully. I have two 26.75 lb bikes. Check my username for how I ride!) No drops, no slamming through gnar, no need for a super burly build. Not talking about Spandex-wearing roadie wannabes on a hardtail but a 4" to 5" bike that would rather climb than descend. Like the bikes I ride.

    A trail bike? Built heavier/burlier, more fun to be had descending, drops, bring on the gnar, tolerates climbing.

    To me they're two different bikes and riding styles. What do you call these two riding styles in Mexico?
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  8. #8
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    My definition is: an xc bike rider loves to climb and descends adequately. He wants a bike that is a very efficient quick ascender and slices and dices on singletrack. And fairly light (for me, that's under 28 lbs, under 27 lbs hopefully. I have two 26.75 lb bikes. Check my username for how I ride!) No drops, no slamming through gnar, no need for a super burly build. Not talking about Spandex-wearing roadie wannabes on a hardtail but a 4" to 5" bike that would rather climb than descend. Like the bikes I ride.

    A trail bike? Built heavier/burlier, more fun to be had descending, drops, bring on the gnar, tolerates climbing.

    To me they're two different bikes and riding styles. What do you call these two riding styles in Mexico?

    Thanks for the explanation, I thought a trail bike was less adecuate for more difficult terrain than a XC. Heavier... I guess I need to weight again my bike because at the LBS the scale indicated 26.89 lbs and I donīt know how that was correct if the XTR equipped VF2 weighted 29 lbs.

    Anyway, in Mexico XC, all mountain (and probably trail) are being confused and probably all are considered XC. What I mean is that almost everybody who has a bike that could fit into these categories thinks their bike is XC. But to be honest, XC trails are almost inexistent in here as the terrain has lots of rocks, tree roots, jumps, holes, etc.

    For me, if the VF2 is considered a trail bike, because it is stronger than a XC, I coudnīt be happier.

    Thanks

  9. #9
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    Ok, so I just read the MBA article. To be honest I agree with 02Bullit, after reading it.. I donīt know whether they liked the VF2 or not.
    I also can see why the bike weighted 29 lbs. those 2.35 tires are probably very heavy and IMHO too big, well, it depends on the orientation you want to give your bike I think.
    So my question is: Did they like it or no? :-s

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    179
    MBA talks the bikes up so much that I usually take it that if they say anything bad they don't like it, if they say great then it is about average, and if they say the very best thing to ever happen, then the company must have paid their advertising bill on time.

  11. #11
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by Bike Poor
    MBA talks the bikes up so much that I usually take it that if they say anything bad they don't like it, if they say great then it is about average, and if they say the very best thing to ever happen, then the company must have paid their advertising bill on time.
    LOL

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: batts65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    My definition is: an xc bike rider loves to climb and descends adequately. He wants a bike that is a very efficient quick ascender and slices and dices on singletrack. And fairly light (for me, that's under 28 lbs, under 27 lbs hopefully. I have two 26.75 lb bikes. Check my username for how I ride!) No drops, no slamming through gnar, no need for a super burly build. Not talking about Spandex-wearing roadie wannabes on a hardtail but a 4" to 5" bike that would rather climb than descend. Like the bikes I ride.

    A trail bike? Built heavier/burlier, more fun to be had descending, drops, bring on the gnar, tolerates climbing.

    To me they're two different bikes and riding styles. What do you call these two riding styles in Mexico?
    I think this subject is defined by each person. I agree very much with the weight of the bike but I define them by geometry and travel. XC bikes are usually around 70-71 head angle and 3-4 inches of travel. Trail Bikes are usually 68-69 head angle and 4.5-5.5 inches of travel. All Mountain is about 67 degree head angle and about 6 inches. Freeride is 66-67 head angle and about 7 inches of travel. DH is 65 head angle or less and above 8 inches of travel. This is just basics for my own classification.

    In my eyes Chumba does not make a true XC bike, a VF2 or XCL with a 120mm fork would definitely work, but I say the XCL with a 140mm fork is greatest bike on the planet. I feel like it does everything very well, climbs, descends, pedals well. It does none of these "great". Which is why it is a great bike because I do not think such a bike exists.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mar-deeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    24
    MBA Reviews are always very vague imo, but I think that has something to do with the way reviews, revenues and margins are tied together in the US market especially if we are talking about a big spender like Specialized or Canondale. For a comparision I read both MBA and the Brit mags MB-UK and MB Action when I can get them here in Denmark, the Brit mags are much more direct in their reviews, if they like or dont like something they tell you in no uncertain terms but they always seem to be fair.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,789
    The review is very weird. They complain that the shock is hard to reach to use the PP switch. In the same issue, they review the new titus FTM, which they say has a PP that is easy to reach. Looking at pictures of both bikes, the shock looks to be in the exact same spot!

    My read was that they did not like the bike or have some issue with the company and slagged it.
    Last edited by Vespasianus; 06-04-2009 at 11:54 AM.

  15. #15
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    The review is very weird. The complain that the shock is hard to reach to use the PP switch. In the same issue, they review the new titus FTM, which they say has a PP that is easy to reach. Looking at pictures of both bikes, the shock looks to be in the exact same spot!

    My read was that they did not like the bike or have some issue with the company and slagged it.
    I agree because I was looking at other reviews with frames very similar with the VF2 and they say nothing about the shock being too hard to reach. Any way, IMO it is NOT hard to reach, I have by no means long arms and I can reach the propedal lever very easy.

    JMO

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dubjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    787
    I found the MBA VF2 article on Chumba's site in case anybody else was interested.

    http://www.chumbaracing.com/media.shtml

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •