Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Azure

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,979

    The Azure

    http://www.ironhorsebikes.com/produc...view/azure.pdf

    A local I trust opionwise came back from the show, and he said the bikes he was most impressed with were the Intense 5.5 (wow, surprise), the Giant Trance and the Ironhorse Azure. After looking at the link, is the Azure basically a thinner-walled Hollowpoint with an ugly standover-happy frame? Man, that thing is ugly, but the guy said it is simply awesome!

    Anyone have more info on it?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    176
    I think it looks nice. Im tring to decide if i wanna save for the azure, mkIII, or turner flux
    I do mostly xc trails but its pretty rocky so dont know if i need the extra travel.

  3. #3
    On MTBR hiatus :(
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,145
    Quote Originally Posted by danK
    http://www.ironhorsebikes.com/produc...view/azure.pdf

    A local I trust opionwise came back from the show, and he said the bikes he was most impressed with were the Intense 5.5 (wow, surprise), the Giant Trance and the Ironhorse Azure. After looking at the link, is the Azure basically a thinner-walled Hollowpoint with an ugly standover-happy frame? Man, that thing is ugly, but the guy said it is simply awesome!

    Anyone have more info on it?
    I dunno about that... function over form and beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that!

    The travel is reduced, the shock mount is moved, the rear triangle looks more purpose built for the task at hand. I'd say IH did a good thing by taking the jack of all trades Hollowpoint and diverging it down two specific paths, one XC race oriented and one a slightly beefier trail bike.

    I kinda like the curved top tube, but am more interested in the MkIII for my non-race needs.

  4. #4
    Riding a Rig.
    Reputation: Vulcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    I agree, the curved top tube is cool looking. I like it enough to get one, but the MKIII is definatl a better match to what I'm looking for I think.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: meat tooth paste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    688
    Don't forget, the first generation Hollowpoints and Hustlers had the bent banana top tube.


  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vecsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by danK
    After looking at the link, is the Azure basically a thinner-walled Hollowpoint with an ugly standover-happy frame? Man, that thing is ugly
    Function over form...always.

  7. #7
    Crawlin' like a Crawfish!
    Reputation: zoo00oom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    178

    don't get me started

    about the curved top tube! It's SWEEET! I am happy it's back and this is one bike I am saving up my dough to get!
    I'm in a groove now, or is it a rut?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Vecsus
    Function over form...always.
    Always? If that was true, you'd do away with 90% of the bicycle industry.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2

    New question here. Sugar-esque

    Looks an awful lot like the first FS bike I ever owned. A Gary Fisher Sugar...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vecsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by danK
    Always? If that was true, you'd do away with 90% of the bicycle industry.
    yes always. fashion and fad be damned. if something isn't functional then why bother? I'm not proposing we go out of the way to be ugly but why would anyone accept substandard performance in order to look good? But of course, the two are not mutually exclusive. A properly designed device will be appealing simply because it looks like it does what it was designed to do.

    "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas" which means "plurality should not be posited without necessity". Or in very simple terms, "keep it as simple as necessary to perform the desired function"

Similar Threads

  1. Shades of Blue (and green)
    By Sasquatch in forum Passion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-19-2004, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

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