View Poll Results: Would You Buy a "Mirage"?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell Yes !

    5 45.45%
  • Maybe.

    4 36.36%
  • Go Suck An Egg !

    2 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772

    ... and if we just ... Mountain Cycle Mirage...

    The all new, Mountain Cycle Mirage, all mountain bike.

    150mm front and rear travel.
    14.5" BB height.
    43" wheelbase.
    68 deg. head angle.
    Semi monocoque frame design.

    Available in; PR-4 Red, Polished, Racer Yellow and Black Anodized.
    A limited edition "stealth" model will be available to celebrate Mountain Cycle's 20th anniversary.
    This limited edition model will be all black with "stealth" graphics.

    All the legendary performance of the Fury and San Andreas, plus more!



    Available in Dec, 2008.
    Just in time for the holidays.

    Think "Super Fury". Eric and Krien.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    I would buy one, but it would need to be 150mm/160mm adjustable travel and strong...
    Just because I would need to sell all 3 of my bikes to afford one.....

  3. #3
    Mountain Cycle Member
    Reputation: cHoc Nr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    I would buy one, but it would need to be 150mm/160mm adjustable travel and strong...
    Just because I would need to sell all 3 of my bikes to afford one.....
    Me too.
    And I agree with mcrumble69 on the strong part, and the selling part
    I already was pondering my head from time to time to replace my Shockwave with a more polyvalent bike that could handle bikeparks.
    If the Mirage is strong enough for that, than that will be the my next Mountain Cycle.
    shoot me again, I ain't dead yet

    I do not have mountainbikes, I have Mountain Cycles

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    559
    160mm would be nice to match my new RS Domain 318IS. I am in dire need for a "Do-It-All" bike. If MC puts a transmission in it, I would sell every last bike in order to afford one

    Dave

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by MC9.5
    160mm would be nice to match my new RS Domain 318IS. I am in dire need for a "Do-It-All" bike. If MC puts a transmission in it, I would sell every last bike in order to afford one

    Dave
    How do you like the Domain so far?
    Mine is great!!! Especially for the money...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    559
    So far so good. My initial impression: It was not very plush out of the box. I have about 25 miles on it so far. I think it may take some time to break in & become a bit more sensitive (even for my 200+ ass). I have been running it @ 160mm and the compression set to nil in hopes of helping the break in period. It is a shame that the compression blow off threshold is set at the factory. I would have preferred to set it myself. When the comp is cranked all the way up, that sucka is STIFF!! All initial sensitivity issues aside, I really like the fork and think it can only get better with more time. It is very bury and should take some serious abuse. I only paid $400 brand new ('Bro deal') so for the money I have ZERO complaints. Now all I need is a FRAME to match

    Dave

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by MC9.5
    So far so good. My initial impression: It was not very plush out of the box. I have about 25 miles on it so far. I think it may take some time to break in & become a bit more sensitive (even for my 200+ ass). I have been running it @ 160mm and the compression set to nil in hopes of helping the break in period. It is a shame that the compression blow off threshold is set at the factory. I would have preferred to set it myself. When the comp is cranked all the way up, that sucka is STIFF!! All initial sensitivity issues aside, I really like the fork and think it can only get better with more time. It is very bury and should take some serious abuse. I only paid $400 brand new ('Bro deal') so for the money I have ZERO complaints. Now all I need is a FRAME to match

    Dave
    I felt the same way when I got mine.
    It wasn't very plush and I wasn't getting full travel.
    After I owned it for a few months I checked the oil height and changed the bath oil hoping it would get more sensitive. It did a little bit but not enough for my taste.
    Finally last weekend I put a softer spring in mine and it's great!!!!
    I have more sag,get full travel, and the compression is way more usable.
    Before I had to run it fully open and it was like an on-off switch. Now I'm running 3-4 clicks in.
    It's strange though because the stock spring is rated For riders between 160-180lbs. I was 180 lbs at the time (170 now) and it was way too stiff.
    I put the softer yellow spring rated for 140-160 lbs in and it feels just right.
    I wonder if you might also need a softer spring. What do you have in it now?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    I felt the same way when I got mine.
    It wasn't very plush and I wasn't getting full travel.
    After I owned it for a few months I checked the oil height and changed the bath oil hoping it would get more sensitive. It did a little bit but not enough for my taste.
    Finally last weekend I put a softer spring in mine and it's great!!!!
    I have more sag,get full travel, and the compression is way more usable.
    Before I had to run it fully open and it was like an on-off switch. Now I'm running 3-4 clicks in.
    It's strange though because the stock spring is rated For riders between 160-180lbs. I was 180 lbs at the time (170 now) and it was way too stiff.
    I put the softer yellow spring rated for 140-160 lbs in and it feels just right.
    I wonder if you might also need a softer spring. What do you have in it now?

    I have the stock spring in there. I may just leave it alone because I plan to beat the hell out of this fork (FR) so it may come in handy in those situations. The fork is listed under FR on the RS web site. Maybe they assume the 140-160lb rider is looking for more of a big hit fork than a sensitive AM slider? It will be a trade off for me because it will be used primarily in an XC/AM role, but I do not want to have to think about it when I come across something big. I will give it a some time before making the decision.

  9. #9
    SDH
    SDH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    8

    new frame

    I would like to see a frame with a little different take.

    Linkage driven single pivot ala zen but strong as fury
    5-6 adjustable travel
    longer TT's than fury say 22.5" for a small
    low slung, low stand over
    68 degree HA
    a tad under 17" seatstays
    6.5 lb frame
    13" BB
    72-73 degrees for seat tube for pedaling

  10. #10
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    6.5 lb frames in the 6" travel range tend to break.
    Around here, a 13" BB height is to low for a six inch travel frame.
    13" BB height is ok for a downhill bike, but not so good, when climbing lots of steps and obstacles, or riding over baby heads. People also don't account for lots of sag, on the new generation of long travel trail bikes.
    13 inches BB height, with sag properly set, would give the bike about the same ride height when loaded, as a good hardtail.
    If the BB height isn't at least 14" with a 150mm fork and 2.35 tires, I won't buy it.
    14.5 would be better with 6-7 inches travel.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by MC9.5
    I have the stock spring in there. I may just leave it alone because I plan to beat the hell out of this fork (FR) so it may come in handy in those situations. The fork is listed under FR on the RS web site. Maybe they assume the 140-160lb rider is looking for more of a big hit fork than a sensitive AM slider? It will be a trade off for me because it will be used primarily in an XC/AM role, but I do not want to have to think about it when I come across something big. I will give it a some time before making the decision.
    I think your right...I beleive because it's considered a FR fork. Thats the reason the springs are firmer than most.
    The stock spring did save my ass a few times..
    At my weight though I think with the soft spring and compression adjust will be just about right for a do it all bike that I get a little stupid on once in awhile.
    So far it feels like it should work out awesome for trail duty but I haven't hit anything all that big yet.
    Hopefully this weekend...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    6.5 lb frames in the 6" travel range tend to break.
    Around here, a 13" BB height is to low for a six inch travel frame.
    13" BB height is ok for a downhill bike, but not so good, when climbing lots of steps and obstacles, or riding over baby heads. People also don't account for lots of sag, on the new generation of long travel trail bikes.
    13 inches BB height, with sag properly set, would give the bike about the same ride height when loaded, as a good hardtail.
    If the BB height isn't at least 14" with a 150mm fork and 2.35 tires, I won't buy it.
    14.5 would be better with 6-7 inches travel.
    I agree with this..While 13 inches would handle nice. Here in New England there's way too much stuff(rocks/logs/Small animals) to hit your pedals/crank arms on..
    I even hit quite often with my Fury and the prototype spacer but I'm getting used to it now..

    SDH I REALLY like the longer top tube idea!!!!!!
    I prefer the feel of a longer top tube with a shorter stem....
    Last edited by mcrumble69; 05-03-2008 at 04:25 AM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    Too late for me cuz I just got a Marin Quake to replace the Sin. My main concern right now would be frame strenght so I'd let you guys try it first and see what's up before I jump into it.

    I'd like it to have a little more travel (around 6.7) with an 8.5 x 2.5 shock, short 4 bar linkage, and an option to put a 150 x 12mm thruaxle. Wait a minute, that's a Marin Quake!
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  14. #14
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Build it with more than 6"s travel and your going to have a hard time pedaling uphill, even with modern shock technology.
    Keep in mind, this is not a gravity only bike we are picking specs on.
    This bike has to do it all as well, or better than, the current Fury and San An classic.
    My idea, is to blend the best of both, for a true replacement, for the San Ans and be a partner to the Fury.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Build it with more than 6"s travel and your going to have a hard time pedaling uphill, even with modern shock technology.
    Keep in mind, this is not a gravity only bike we are picking specs on.
    This bike has to do it all as well, or better than, the current Fury and San An classic.
    My idea, is to blend the best of both, for a true replacement, for the San Ans and be a partner to the Fury.
    You're right "Sorta" I think it all depends on the build, the rider, and the terrain.
    Although I wish it was lighter,my 36lb 7in travel Bullit with a pos DHX air doesn't climb TOO bad..(for my local trails)and performs well for all other aspects of trail riding.
    There is usually a trade off for most "All Mountain" type bikes(I hate that term!!!) but it sure would be nice to see one that's versatile
    It would be great to have a frame that's light enough, yet strong enough that you could build it up on the XC side of "All Mountain" with lighter parts.
    Or the "Freeride" side with burly parts.

    A frame I would like to see would be a combo of what SDH and Eric W described.
    Single pivot and-or split pivot for low maintenance and Semi monocoque to stay with the MC look.....About 7 to 7.5 lb frame weight.
    160mm of travel with the option to run 150mm with a shorter shock.
    A SPV Manitou Swinger X4 Air (they actually have midstroke) Or a CCDB if you want coil.
    Adjustable 67-68 degree HA,(via shock or shuttle Bullit style),72 or 73 degree SA,17 in CS,14 to 14.5 in BB height,Low standover, and a longish 22.5 in top tube on a 16in size small frame.
    I think this would be the ideal frame for my local trails that I could still use for lift access riding at places like Diablo,Highland Mtn in NH, and MT Snow in VT.

    Ok there's my input..I'll bet we have Krien and Eric's heads spinning by now...

  16. #16
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    Ok there's my input..I'll bet we have Krien and Eric's heads spinning by now...
    I've thought of sending them a link, to our "design team's" specs.

    So far we haven't heard from Tim... oh yes we have...he wants an internal transmission...
    Those are expensive though and hurt pedaling efficiency.

    Later, Eric.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar

    So far we haven't heard from Tim... oh yes we have...he wants an internal transmission...
    Those are expensive though and hurt pedaling efficiency.

    Later, Eric.
    I like the idea but my biggest concerns would be the weight and reliability..
    How much more would it weigh than a standard drivetrain?
    And would it be user serviceable.
    I have seen pics of one internally and it looks pretty complicated.
    It reminds me of a T-5 transmission from a 5.0 Mustang I was dumb enough to open up once...

  18. #18
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    I like the idea but my biggest concerns would be the weight and reliability..
    How much more would it weigh than a standard drivetrain?
    And would it be user serviceable.
    I have seen pics of one internally and it looks pretty complicated.
    It reminds me of a T-5 transmission from a 5.0 Mustang I was dumb enough to open up once...
    I do believe I read somewhere, maybe the Nicolai forum, that some where having problems getting their internal boxes serviced. They are great on downhill bikes, but they rob a lot of power, when used for XC / Trail service. I'm not sure how they compare weight wise.

    I agree with using a slightly longer toptube, than the Fury.
    I had mentioned that in another thread, but not here. I'm wondering if that, combined with the slacker head angle, would stretch the wheelbase farther than 43"?
    Longer wheelbase bikes, over 43"s, turn like trucks in the switchbacks around here.

    Later, Eric.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  19. #19
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    I wonder who said, "Go Suck an Egg!"

    HMMMMM....
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I wonder who said, "Go Suck an Egg!"

    HMMMMM....
    I'm an honest Joe! I wonder who the other one was? HMMMM...
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  21. #21
    Mountain Cycle Member
    Reputation: cHoc Nr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    134
    Some asked for 150/160mm travel, althow that would be nice, but a more interesting option imho would be if there will be a floating disc brake option for the Mirage.
    shoot me again, I ain't dead yet

    I do not have mountainbikes, I have Mountain Cycles

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by cHoc Nr1
    Some asked for 150/160mm travel, althow that would be nice, but a more interesting option imho would be if there will be a floating disc brake option for the Mirage.
    That's why I mentioned "Split- Pivot" in my Ideal frame post above.
    It's all the benefits of the floating brake without the extra weight.
    Here's a link..

    http://www.split-pivot.com/

  23. #23
    Mountain Cycle Member
    Reputation: cHoc Nr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    That's why I mentioned "Split- Pivot" in my Ideal frame post above.
    It's all the benefits of the floating brake without the extra weight.
    Here's a link..

    http://www.split-pivot.com/
    No doubt this will help with the influence of the brakeforce to the suspension,
    But still some of the braking power will be transfered into the suspension.

    As the website itself also states
    SPLIT-PIVOT separates acceleration forces from braking forces in the suspension The system reduces excess suspension compression due to acceleration forces, and at the same time reduces excess compression due to braking forces.
    Only a floating brake system can completely eliminate braking forces in the suspension.
    But if the braking forces in the Split-Pivot are moderate to low compared to a normal single pivot one could maybe live without.
    shoot me again, I ain't dead yet

    I do not have mountainbikes, I have Mountain Cycles

  24. #24
    Hmmmmm
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    People keep talking about floating brakes, which I have to admit I've never used, but the people I've talked to, that have switched from standard to floating rear brakes, tell me they didn't notice a big difference. I learned on motorcycles and in cars, to brake before a rough spot in the road or trail, so the vehicle "floats" over the imperfection.
    In any case, my San An brakes better than my Stumpjumpers did in the rough stuff, even without a floating brake.
    Last edited by Ericmopar; 05-05-2008 at 06:40 PM.
    "I thought of that while riding my bike."
    Albert Einstein, on the theory of relativity.

    Peace and Long Rides...

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,792
    Can we see some pictures?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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