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

Voters
11. This poll is closed
  • Hell Yes !

    5 45.45%
  • Maybe.

    4 36.36%
  • Go Suck An Egg !

    2 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 77 of 77
  1. #1
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250

    ... 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.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    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
    560
    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
    1,056
    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
    560
    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
    1,056
    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
    560
    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
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    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.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    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
    1,056
    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
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    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.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    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
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    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.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    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
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    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.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  19. #19
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I wonder who said, "Go Suck an Egg!"

    HMMMMM....
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  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
    1,056
    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
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    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.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Can we see some pictures?

  26. #26
    VeloFello
    Reputation: VeloFello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    94
    Hey Eric... have you been snooping in our computers...?? ;-)

    Don't worry - things are underway (and thanks for all your input here BTW, it's been noted..) but new frames do take time (a lot more time than we were planning)...

    The official line: We are working on new projects, they will have two wheels and will be true to the legend of "Mountain Cycle". Other than that we are not telling!! ;-)
    I'm a Mountain Cycle employee...
    Check out our new blog at MountainCycle.com
    Or if you are hooked on Facebook

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    I'll buy one if it's a full monocoque like a Shockwave, has a leverage ratio manipultating link like the Shockwave, has the option to run 2 shock eye to eye lenghts for AM (7.875 x 2.25) to achieve 6.7 inches or FR(8.5 x 2.5) to achieve 7.5 inches; has option for 2 rear dropouts AM(qr/10mm x 135mm) or FR(12 x150) + floating brake option. I'd prefer it to have 73mm bb, 1.5 inch head tube, 31.6 seatpost.

    I want it to have a 67.5 HA and 70 deg SA with a 13.75 inch BB height for AM using a 545mm AC height fork. For FR I want it to have a 66.5 HA, 69 SA with 14.25 inch BB height with a 565 AC height fork. I want it to have a 21.7 inch TT for Small, 22.7 inch TT for Medium, and 23.7 inch TT for large and wheelbase I'd prefer 44 inch for small 45 for medium and 46 for large. Chainstay lenght I'd prefer 17.3.

    Frame weight with AM setup should be around 9.5 lbs with a Marzocchi TST-R air (7.875 x 2.25) and 10.7 lbs with Marzocchi TST-R coil (8.5 x 2.5) std. spring on a small size.

    I'd expect the monocoque strength comparable to the Shockwave 9.5 and not the Sin or DNA around the front triangle; meaning thicker skin particularly around the critical stressed areas such as the junction of the seatmast and downtube.

    If that shows up then I'd sell my Marin Quake and DNA and grab that one!

    I've voted against the Mirage cuz it's too close to the Fury ( just +1 inch) and would directly overlap the classic in the current range. Seriously, I think MC needs something that I'm recommending cuz there's nothing in between the classic and the Shockwave.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  28. #28
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by nickgto

    I've voted against the Mirage cuz it's too close to the Fury ( just +1 inch) and would directly overlap the classic in the current range. Seriously, I think MC needs something that I'm recommending cuz there's nothing in between the classic and the Shockwave.
    Thats just it, the Classic is a great bike, but is a bit tall and doesn't come in "sizes". It also is a bit too short in the wheelbase when set up with a 130-140mm fork. My 06 Classic is still one of the best bikes I've ever owned, but It does need a replacement.
    The Fury is a great bike, but was designed originally for things like dirt jumping and not as a trail bike. At least thats what I read somewhere.
    Hence the name "Mirage" as the new bike would be a mirror image of the Fury, but optimized for trail usage (all mountain).
    I don't like the current "downhill" wheelbases on a lot of XC and AM bikes, while the Classic's wheelbase is a bit too short. Thats why I'd like to see something close to 43" axle to axle. I've test ridden 6" travel bikes, with 13" BB heights and hate them, but the Classic's BB height is a bit much. Mine is 15.25" with a 130mm fork and 2.4 front, and 2.35 rear tires.
    I've figured out ( around here ) that 14.5" BB with 6" travel would be just right.
    Remember, it will sag to around 13" when loaded and set up correctly.

    Later, Eric.
    I'm thinking of the San An's replacement really.
    Last edited by Ericmopar; 05-05-2008 at 10:21 PM.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  29. #29
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by VeloFello
    Hey Eric... have you been snooping in our computers...?? ;-)
    I'd sure like to see what's in those CAD programs Krien.
    I want a replacement for the San An Classic DHS and DNA, but some of these dudes, want a short travel downhill and freeride bike.
    What we need is a Fury, with the "Mirage" specs and 5-6" adjustable travel for us trail bikers, and an all new sled, with 7-8"s travel for the shuttle dudes and dudettes.
    Mountain Cycle "Mirage", has a nice ring to it...

    Later, Eric.
    Last edited by Ericmopar; 05-05-2008 at 10:24 PM.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  30. #30
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    Can we see some pictures?
    Pictures? Of what?

    Later, Eric.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Thats just it, the Classic is a great bike, but is a bit tall and doesn't come in "sizes". It also is a bit too short in the wheelbase when set up with a 130-140mm fork. My 06 Classic is still one of the best bikes I've ever owned, but It does need a replacement.
    The Fury is a great bike, but was designed originally for things like dirt jumping and not as a trail bike. At least thats what I read somewhere.
    Hence the name "Mirage" as the new bike would be a mirror image of the Fury, but optimized for trail usage (all mountain).
    I don't like the current "downhill" wheelbases on a lot of XC and AM bikes, while the Classic's wheelbase is a bit too short. Thats why I'd like to see something close to 43" axle to axle. I've test ridden 6" travel bikes, with 13" BB heights and hate them, but the Classic's BB height is a bit much. Mine is 15.25" with a 130mm fork and 2.4 front, and 2.35 rear tires.
    I've figured out ( around here ) that 14.5" BB with 6" travel would be just right.
    Remember, it will sag to around 13" when loaded and set up correctly.

    Later, Eric.
    I'm thinking of the San An's replacement really.
    I understand your gripes about the classic and the need for it's immediate replacement. MC did replace it with the DNA but was immediately taken out of their current line up together with the Sin obviously for reasons that you and I both know.

    My guess is they would eventually release an 6 inch AM bike and a 7 inch FR bike and hopefully all our inputs would be considered as we only hope for MC's resurgence in the MTB scene.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  32. #32
    Mountain Cycle Member
    Reputation: cHoc Nr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    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.
    Me, I also never have ridden a bike with a floater, but in the time was really thinking about the kit Razor Rock was selling (with the 20mm rear hub) but that was just before they went out of business.

    From my experiance with my (older model) Shockwave, I do notice the suspension locking up when braking. That's partly also because I run my sag rather high (45-50%).
    And braking before the rough stuff, thats most of the time not an option on the trails/downhills I ride
    shoot me again, I ain't dead yet

    I do not have mountainbikes, I have Mountain Cycles

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    131
    I like the idea, but it's 'too much' bike for me. How about throwing in a Mirage Lite too? To make a rather complete line-up. A bike capable of XC/Marathon and AM. Something with link driven damper, with interchangeable links (or multi-mount location) to get either around 110mm or 130mm.
    *) Good pedal efficiency, but with reasonably simple suspension design (split-pivot looks good).
    *) Designed for use with travel-adjust forks that cover something in the range of 100-140 (thinking Pike, Revelation, Talas, Laurin FCR)
    *) Around 70deg HA and 73deg SA @ 100/110
    *) Around 68deg HA and 71deg SA @ 140/130
    *) Around 14" BB height @ 140/130
    *) Can take 2.4" tires
    *) Stiff, rigid and low-maintenance
    *) Around 2.5kg - 2.7kg for a Large, without damper (light = good, but not on account of rigidity or stiffness)
    *) Continuous straight seat-tube to allow for significant saddle height adjustment.
    *) Not too cramped cockpit, but neither racy stretch. About 60 cm eff. TT for a Large.
    *) Monocoque HT gusset for that MC look and rigidness.
    *) 200mm/50mm shock for 2.2:1 and 2.6:1 ratios (should do well with stock shocks).


    Instead of it being a cross between Fury and San An, this one being somewhat of a cross between Fury and Zen. It should be a bike that is built to go long distance in any terrain. Either have it more Marathon with optimisation for fork @ 100 - 120 or have it in AM for an optimal fork of 120 - 140.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: regis06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by cascades
    I like the idea, but it's 'too much' bike for me. How about throwing in a Mirage Lite too? To make a rather complete line-up. A bike capable of XC/Marathon and AM. Something with link driven damper, with interchangeable links (or multi-mount location) to get either around 110mm or 130mm.
    *) Good pedal efficiency, but with reasonably simple suspension design (split-pivot looks good).
    *) Designed for use with travel-adjust forks that cover something in the range of 100-140 (thinking Pike, Revelation, Talas, Laurin FCR)
    *) Around 70deg HA and 73deg SA @ 100/110
    *) Around 68deg HA and 71deg SA @ 140/130
    *) Around 14" BB height @ 140/130
    *) Can take 2.4" tires
    *) Stiff, rigid and low-maintenance
    *) Around 2.5kg - 2.7kg for a Large, without damper (light = good, but not on account of rigidity or stiffness)
    *) Continuous straight seat-tube to allow for significant saddle height adjustment.
    *) Not too cramped cockpit, but neither racy stretch. About 60 cm eff. TT for a Large.
    *) Monocoque HT gusset for that MC look and rigidness.
    *) 200mm/50mm shock for 2.2:1 and 2.6:1 ratios (should do well with stock shocks).


    Instead of it being a cross between Fury and San An, this one being somewhat of a cross between Fury and Zen. It should be a bike that is built to go long distance in any terrain. Either have it more Marathon with optimisation for fork @ 100 - 120 or have it in AM for an optimal fork of 120 - 140.
    +1
    Exactly what I need.
    Where do I sign?

  35. #35
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    What you two are describing, is a Zen with more travel.
    What I'm interested in creating, is a replacement for the San Ans.
    The Six inch travel range of trail bike, is what is currently missing from the MC lineup.
    That, an a 7-8" freeride bike, capable of some uphill work, without a shuttle or chair lift.
    The Zen has the XC racer types covered and the Shockwave has the downhillers covered.
    What MC needs most, is the middle range of bikes first.
    5-6" bikes, have always been MC's core business.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35

    Where is the picture/photo?

    Of this MIRAGE? Or it like in the desert mirage, our fantasy?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    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.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    What you two are describing, is a Zen with more travel.
    ...
    The Zen has the XC racer types covered and the Shockwave has the downhillers covered.
    Exactly, but with more versatility and not focussed on regular XC racing (it needs to be much much lighter for that nowadays), but on long distance fun rides. And of course Zen is not covering anything anymore, since it is out of production, a hole in the line-up if you ask me. I'm not saying that your Mirage should not be; I'd like to have and your Mirage and a 'Mirage Lite' if I may call it so for convenience. The Mirage takes off where the Lite ends, a nice complementary line-up.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by OfaNaor
    Of this MIRAGE? Or it like in the desert mirage, our fantasy?
    I'll call my fantasy 6.7 to 7.5 inch travel big hit bike either "Tsunami" or "Richeter".
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  39. #39
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by OfaNaor
    Of this MIRAGE? Or it like in the desert mirage, our fantasy?
    Mirage, to see ones own image, a reflection (of the Fury).
    It won't be a mirror of the Fury, if it gets a split pivot rear end.

    Right now it's in our fantasies.
    I was wondering where you disappeared to Ofa.

    Later, Eric.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  40. #40
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by nickgto
    I'll call my fantasy 6.7 to 7.5 inch travel big hit bike either "Tsunami" or "Richeter".
    I like those names. I think Tsunami, would be a great name for a freeride sled.
    Nick, why the oddball travel specs? Why not just round it to 7 and 8"s?

    Actually, I think the new Shockwave is available in a 8 inch version as well as a 9" version.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  41. #41
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I forgot the Zen is not in production, although frames are still available.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I like those names. I think Tsunami, would be a great name for a freeride sled.
    Nick, why the oddball travel specs? Why not just round it to 7 and 8"s?

    Actually, I think the new Shockwave is available in a 8 inch version as well as a 9" version.
    Glad you like my Tsunami fantasy freeride frame name! It's still related to Tremor, Rumble, San Andreas, Shockwave, and AfterShock; which has something to do with earthquakes. That's also the reason why I got the Marin Quake as my Sin replacement over the Glory FR. Now all my bikes names are related to earthquakes.

    I wanted a 3:1 leverage ratio that is why I concluded at those travels. I think 170mm or 6.7 would be just right for Aggressive AM/Light Freeride while 7.5 would be at the heart of full on freeride just what the Sin was originally intended to be.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    I guess there will come a time when the San Andreas is no longer made. But it's such a good bike that I think they should always make it

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35

    You know, running after the money :-)))))

    Sorry, I didn't figure out.

    Main Frame like Fury?
    Swingram like Fury/San Andreas
    The joint between frame and the swingram by 2 pivot? So it isn't "Single Pivot" any more?

    I heard from Krien about other thing, something similar to "Mavrik" bikes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Mirage, to see ones own image, a reflection (of the Fury).
    It won't be a mirror of the Fury, if it gets a split pivot rear end.

    Right now it's in our fantasies.
    I was wondering where you disappeared to Ofa.

    Later, Eric.

  45. #45
    Mountain Cycle Member
    Reputation: cHoc Nr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    I guess there will come a time when the San Andreas is no longer made. But it's such a good bike that I think they should always make it
    I hope that the time will never come, that they will cease production on the San Andreas.
    First of all, it's an Icon on itself, you can spot one from a mile away (ah, well, almost )
    And there are not much frames that are that strongly related with it's brand as the San Andreas.

    And as Shawn says, it's still a good bike, even after 20 years with just minor changes to it, the most visible change in those 20 years is the seat tower, witch had to be beefed-up.
    After all these years at Mountain Cycle where frames came and went, the San Andreas always was a constant factor.

    Talking about Mountain Cycle without the San Andreas, is as the Vatican without a Pope, New York without the Statue of Liberty, San Fransisco without the Golden Gate bridge, well, you get the point
    shoot me again, I ain't dead yet

    I do not have mountainbikes, I have Mountain Cycles

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35
    I keeping to my self one San Andreas frame as a souvenir, Red frame with light Braun swingram (unique color)

    I keeping my self not to assemble it, may be in 10 years

    :-))))))))

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    I'll just try to preserve my San Andreas DNA as long as I can by doing very light riding with it. I still get alot of questions about my frame; as some think it's a classic dh Cannondale frame of whatever.

    One of the reasons why I did not vote to get a Mirage is because my DNA has 7 inches of travel, 14.25 bb height, 44 inch wheelbase and around 68 degree HA with my 170mm 66RC2x fork; and that is pretty close to the 6 inch 14.5bb, 43 inch wb and 68 deg HA of the Mirage. The frame weighed in at 7.75 lbs with an FSA Pig DH Pro headset, seatpost clamp, and Manitou 4 way coil so it ain't that heavy. Also, it does not climb like it's got 7 inches of travel even though it's 34 lbs build heft would eventually drain me on epic XC rides. Although it wasn't as flickable and as confidence inspiring as my Sin even with similar travel, the DNA at 7x7 is still a capable descender; besides it was my trail bike and I was intentionally riding it conservative on the way down.
    Last edited by nickgto; 05-08-2008 at 01:48 AM.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by cHoc Nr1
    I hope that the time will never come, that they will cease production on the San Andreas.
    First of all, it's an Icon on itself, you can spot one from a mile away (ah, well, almost )
    And there are not much frames that are that strongly related with it's brand as the San Andreas.

    And as Shawn says, it's still a good bike, even after 20 years with just minor changes to it, the most visible change in those 20 years is the seat tower, witch had to be beefed-up.
    After all these years at Mountain Cycle where frames came and went, the San Andreas always was a constant factor.

    Talking about Mountain Cycle without the San Andreas, is as the Vatican without a Pope, New York without the Statue of Liberty, San Fransisco without the Golden Gate bridge, well, you get the point
    Spot on. Keep the san an going. It is what MC is recognized for. If you look at a sucesfull touring car like the porsche. they all look very similliar with minor tweaks. And have been using the same shape for years and it is a killer touring car because they just refined a bit each time.
    MC should stand for Monocoque cycles.
    Take a vote on who thinks the San an should be discontinued and i am sure not many people want to see it wiped. By doing so i think you would lose the real MC die hards
    So why not keep it in production and just add the Mirage in there with it. It beter to have a choice of a couple then it is One.
    Anyway thats my 2 cent worth.
    Josh

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by ozbmx
    Spot on. Keep the san an going. It is what MC is recognized for. If you look at a sucesfull touring car like the porsche. they all look very similliar with minor tweaks. And have been using the same shape for years and it is a killer touring car because they just refined a bit each time.
    MC should stand for Monocoque cycles.
    Take a vote on who thinks the San an should be discontinued and i am sure not many people want to see it wiped. By doing so i think you would lose the real MC die hards
    So why not keep it in production and just add the Mirage in there with it. It beter to have a choice of a couple then it is One.
    Anyway thats my 2 cent worth.
    Josh
    I Agree..The San An is an icon..
    Have it look the same.Just make some minor changes. Like lower the bb and travel to 4-5 inches.
    Also have it come in sizes so short guys like me can fit on one.

  50. #50
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I don't want to see the San An out of Production, but I got to looking at the way the Classic is built one day, and realized that the way it's designed, won't let the pivot be lowered much if at all.
    The same can be said, about it's Bottom Bracket height, which can't be lowered properly without moving the pivot in relation to the BB.
    It has to do, with that straight frame and the way the shock and swing-arm line up with each other.
    I chose the Fury's design to modify, because it's so blasted reliable, looks good and would be even better with a little more travel and a slightly longer top tube. ( For trail bike use ).
    Mostly though, I'd like to see a 5-6" adjustable travel Fury, but so many love it the way it is, that I'd hate to see the original design go out of production.

    I agree with Eric's opinion on lowering the San An's travel back down to it's original design specs. It always was stretched a little to far as the DHS. It would do better with a maximum of 5" travel and a 2" stroke shock.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by ozbmx
    MC should stand for Monocoque cycles.
    Take a vote on who thinks the San an should be discontinued and i am sure not many people want to see it wiped. By doing so i think you would lose the real MC die hards
    So why not keep it in production and just add the Mirage in there with it. It beter to have a choice of a couple then it is One.
    Anyway thats my 2 cent worth.
    Josh
    I agree. The San Andreas Classic replacement should still be full monocoque. Just my .02 cents but for me a real Mountain Cycle should have FULL MONOCOQUE. Taking Porsche as an example, there have been lower end 924's, 944's, and 964's with warmed up 5 cyclinder Audi engines as well as grand touring 928's with a 4 cam v8; but those models faded as the Porsche's purists demand for the sweet opposed six rear engine / rear drive platform. Porsche purists don't even consider the mid engined Cayman and Boxster as a true Porsche.

    It's also the reason why I only got the Shockwave, Sin, and DNA cuz all were full monocoque.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    178
    So is MC going to get rid of the SA. if so when are they looking at doing that?
    Maybe it is best to take it back to original travel spec etc and just keep the line going.
    Either way can you let us know if and or when the San Andreas will be discontinued?
    Josh

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ozbmx
    Spot on. Keep the san an going. It is what MC is recognized for. If you look at a sucesfull touring car like the porsche. they all look very similliar with minor tweaks. And have been using the same shape for years and it is a killer touring car because they just refined a bit each time.
    MC should stand for Monocoque cycles.
    Take a vote on who thinks the San an should be discontinued and i am sure not many people want to see it wiped. By doing so i think you would lose the real MC die hards
    So why not keep it in production and just add the Mirage in there with it. It beter to have a choice of a couple then it is One.
    Anyway thats my 2 cent worth.
    Josh
    I was just thinking the same thing. The San Andreas is like a Porsche 911. You take the same basic design that works, but is a little different then anything else and you make small changes to it every year to make it better and better and better!

    Someone mentions above that the SA can't really be redisigned to give a lower BB and some other tweeks that people want. I dissagree, It can be redesigned to have a modern geometry similar the a Heckler. the pivot location can be moved, the pivot location on the SA isn't the Holly Grail of pivot locations. What is the holly Grail about the SA is it's supper strong and stiff structure. Without that the SA would be just an average bike, at best. So I am saying the SA could be redisigned with modern geometry in a way that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a Classic and a redesigned and modernized model if the were next to each other.

    That is what MC should be doing. If they did that, they wouldn't be able to build enough of them. Could you imagine a bike with the performance of a heckler, with the added strength and stiffness, which would add greatly to the performance, then add the beauty of the monocoque design. I mean, my god, the SA already has the reputation, that is the single hardest thing for any company to aquire for themselves or a product. I could just see the marketing hype now: THE ALL NEW REDISIGNED MOUNTAIN CYCLE SAN ANDREAS! MC would have a big hit one their hands!
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 05-09-2008 at 10:30 AM.

  54. #54
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    The problem with lowering the pivot on the Classic, is that I don't think, there is enough room on the frame to clear the shock properly.
    If the swingarm pivot comes down towards the BB, the rear shock's geometry, in relation to the upper and lower shock mounts would also change, but I don't know if that would make it more progressive or more falling rate.
    There also isn't much room for the front dérailleur as it stands now, although some of the new front mechs have side mount adjustment screws, that ought to help.
    Really that was what the DNA was all about, but it didn't do well on the market.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    The problem with lowering the pivot on the Classic, is that I don't think, there is enough room on the frame to clear the shock properly.
    If the swingarm pivot comes down towards the BB, the rear shock's geometry, in relation to the upper and lower shock mounts would also change, but I don't know if that would make it more progressive or more falling rate.
    There also isn't much room for the front dérailleur as it stands now, although some of the new front mechs have side mount adjustment screws, that ought to help.
    Really that was what the DNA was all about, but it didn't do well on the market.
    I think the reason why the DNA did't do well is because MC was going in shambles around the time it was just introduced. People got scared in buying a frame from a company that was on it's way down so sales of the DNA died.

    I personally like the geometry of the DNA as a trailbike. It had 69 degree HA with a 535mm fork and mine is around 68 degrees with a 555mm AC height fork. I think all the concerns of the classic geometry wide was somewhat addressed by the DNA because my BB height is only 14.25. The variable geometry of the seatmast is helpful in dialing out your desired feel but I kept mine in the shortest possible. The adjustable travel is kinda moot though because the 7.75 inch travel mode required a very tall fork like an '05 66RC or an '05 888RC 200mm in order to be around 68 degrees. I would have preferred a shorter eye to eye shock 7.5 x 2.0 despite the reduction in travel if I wanted to use it for agressive riding.

    My only gripe with the DNA is that I don't think it's as strong as the classic. I think that the Fury is at least 3x stronger than the DNA espcially around the front triangle.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    The DNA looks kinda cheap to me. It doesn't have the one off works look of the classic. It looks a little like some of these cookie cutter department store monocoque bikes that are being ridden by people who don't have the money to buy a car (that was my politically correct way of saying that). That's what I was affraid of happening when Kenisis bought Mountain Cycle. In my opinion Kenisis was never interested in keeping a highend mountain bike company around. I think they bought Mountain Cycle because it was a cheap way to obtain the monocoque technology so they could filter it down to the cheap markets where they could sell in huge quantities.

    Again, if the current owners took the SA DHS, gave it a modern geometry workover but kept the looks of the classic or slightly tweeked the looks to modernize it a little, they would have something very special. Again the SA is only as good as it is because of the stiffness and strength of it's structure as a whole, yes some had some localized strength issues, that were solved. And, lets face it, the geometry is outdated. But, if you combined that stiffness and strength with some modern geometry, you would have a bike that simlpy could not be touched by anything that currents exists.

  57. #57
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    The DNA looks kinda cheap to me. It doesn't have the one off works look of the classic. It looks a little like some of these cookie cutter department store monocoque bikes that are being ridden by people who don't have the money to buy a car (that was my politically correct way of saying that). That's what I was affraid of happening when Kenisis bought Mountain Cycle. In my opinion Kenisis was never interested in keeping a highend mountain bike company around. I think they bought Mountain Cycle because it was a cheap way to obtain the monocoque technology so they could filter it down to the cheap markets where they could sell in huge quantities.

    Again, if the current owners took the SA DHS, gave it a modern geometry workover but kept the looks of the classic or slightly tweeked the looks to modernize it a little, they would have something very special. Again the SA is only as good as it is because of the stiffness and strength of it's structure as a whole, yes some had some localized strength issues, that were solved. And, lets face it, the geometry is outdated. But, if you combined that stiffness and strength with some modern geometry, you would have a bike that simlpy could not be touched by anything that currents exists.
    Except a Fury....

    Part of the problem is the way the Classic looks. I try to explain to people that the bike has been updated, but they seem to think it looks the same as a 18 year old SA, so therefore it must handle like one.

    I'd like for MC to keep it in the lineup though. They just need to shorten the travel back down to about 5" and change the geometry so it's optimal with a 140mm fork.
    The travel would be easy enough, that's just a new shock cleat design.
    It wouldn't hurt, if the forward frame on the San An was extended about an inch as well. Or maybe a "large" San An with the 1" longer effective TT length.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Except a Fury....

    Part of the problem is the way the Classic looks. I try to explain to people that the bike has been updated, but they seem to think it looks the same as a 18 year old SA, so therefore it must handle like one.

    I'd like for MC to keep it in the lineup though. They just need to shorten the travel back down to about 5" and change the geometry so it's optimal with a 140mm fork.
    The travel would be easy enough, that's just a new shock cleat design.
    It wouldn't hurt, if the forward frame on the San An was extended about an inch as well. Or maybe a "large" San An with the 1" longer effective TT length.
    Eric (or anyone else) Have you ever tried the 6.5 eye to eye shock on your SA?
    I have always wanted a SA but I have never been able to find one to test ride.
    I have shied away because I figured it would be too big for me at 5 ft 7 because of the bb and seat mast height.
    If I remember correctly I think someone said the small is about a 19 inch.


    I wonder if the 6.5 shock might make for some nice geometry and better sizing options.
    Personally I don't really care about quanity of travel as long as the quality is there.

    If it would fit me I would probably buy a used San Andreas frame and build it up with parts from my XC bike if I could find one cheap enough..

    I know I asked a similar question in the "official post" I just can't find it and have a horrible memory..

    Eric
    Last edited by mcrumble69; 05-10-2008 at 06:31 AM.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    Eric (or anyone else) Have you ever tried the 6.5 eye to eye shock on your SA?
    I have always wanted a SA but I have never been able to find one to test ride.
    I have shied away because I figured it would be too big for me at 5 ft 7 because of the bb and seat mast height.
    If I remember correctly I think someone said the small is about a 19 inch.


    I wonder if the 6.5 shock might make for some nice geometry and better sizing options.
    Personally I don't really care about quanity of travel as long as the quality is there.

    If it would fit me I would probably buy a used San Andreas frame and build it up with parts from my XC bike if I could find one cheap enough..

    I know I asked a similar question in the "official post" I just can't find it and have a horrible memory..

    Eric
    Unless your really short all the small subframe does is shorten the top tube length. Im 5'9" and have a medium and I can still move my seat down 6". You still have to use the same BB to seat height no matter what size you have. When I bought my last frame MC sent me a small subframe, I call and told them I ordered a medium. They sent me the medium and told me to keep the small, I tried it and it's to short. I have a 90mm stem and I like the top tube length with the medium subframe. I am running 6" travel in the back but I have shorter shock mounts up front. So it is like having 6" of travel with 4.5" travel geometry. Some people complain that the top tube length of the SA is to short.
    So at 5'7" you'll be able to find a comfy setup using the correct stem, fore aft seat position and seat height. But yes the BB is always going to be higher on the SA, but stay with a quality 6.5" shock, it's all you need. If I ever buy a Cane Creek BB shock, I'll have it made to make 5" of travel. I think that would be perfect.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    This is my '96 SA with a 6.5" Statos Helix Pro, that gives it 4.5" of travel. I can still move the seat down at least 6". The fork is a 125mm travel.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Here is the new one that I mentioned above. 7.5" shock that gives 6" travel.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Thanks for the info!!!! Awesome looking bikes..
    I was worried about the bike feeling too tall.
    If I do get one I would probably run the 6.5 X 1.5 to keep it lower.
    Do you know what the bb to the top of the seat mast(clamp area) height is?

    I have always wanted a San Andreas since I first saw one in the early 90's.
    I just never pulled the trigger.

  63. #63
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I haven't been able to ride a San An XC, although I'd like to try one.
    I would like to see the bike set up, with a 7.5 x 2 shock with less travel than the DHS, so the leverage ratio would be more reasonable. You have to remember, the DHS was a downhill bike, but that is the realm of the Shockwave now, so it would be nice if the Classic returned to it's trailbike roots.
    I've thought of trying a 6.5 x 1.5" shock, but don't like the higher leverage ratio that would create. The shocks out on the market, really work better if the leverage ration is kept below 3-1.
    I also would like to see the San An settle on the 5" travel setting, just because 140mm forks are real common these days.
    Does anyone know, if the San An, fitted with the shorter shock is actually lower? I mean, the shock is shorter, but the shorter shock also gets mounted lower in the variable position mounts.

    What I think might be nice, is a standardization to the 7.5 x 2 shock, with 5" travel and keep a two position shock mount on the frame, so the geometry can be changed from about 68 deg to 70 with a 130-140mm fork. Actually, they could just keep the shock mount system they have, so people could put whatever they want on it, and just offer a new cleat for 5" travel.
    As far as height Eric, I've gotten used to putting my uphill side foot down when I'm riding along slopes and when it's flat it's just not that big a deal to get on the bike. The reason I want to see a San An with a lower BB height, is to make it just a bit better in the corner carving dept. while maintaining it's ability to hammer over obstacles.
    BTW, I think the Classic was optimized for people under 6ft (2m) anyways, because people like me that are 6ft need to run a pretty long stem on one (110mm) for a trail bike geometry. That's why I'd like to see a "large" San An with a 1" longer main frame. My knees hit the back of the stem a little too often in technical terrain.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nickgto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    Here is the new one that I mentioned above. 7.5" shock that gives 6" travel.
    Bike looks good! The geometry just looks too dated! I hope MC would consider your recommendations on lowering the bb to a more acceptable height. I can just imagine how it would feel riding the classic on steep chutes. MC should continue selling the frame for people that would like to ride the good old days; but still make the Neo San Andreas version.
    DH:Mountain Cycle Shockwave 9.5 w/ 888R
    FR:Marin Quake w/ 888RC
    AM:BMC Superstroke 01 w/ 66RC2X

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Does anyone know, if the San An, fitted with the shorter shock is actually lower? I mean, the shock is shorter, but the shorter shock also gets mounted lower in the variable position mounts.
    I would think that a shock with a 1 inch shorter eye to eye length would lower the bb and rake it out a bit, but I never considered the VPS mounts so "I dont know"
    The greenfish geometery chart lists 2 seperate geometry listings but it doesn't specify if it's seperated by different shocks/travel #'s
    I'm still not sure how accurate it is.

    Here's the chart for those who would like to see it.
    Eric

    BTW: Sorry to jack you're thread Eric...

    MOUNTAIN CYCLE SAN ANDREAS Frame Size SMALL STANDARD
    TT length 20.9" 23"
    Wheelbase 42.2-43.5" 43.1"
    HT angle 68-70° 68-70°
    ST angle 68.4-76.3° 68.4-76.3°
    Head tube length 5.0" 5.0"
    Chainstay length 16.25-16.5" 16.25-16.5"
    BB height 13-15.5" 13-15.5"
    BB width 73mm 73mm
    Standover height 27" 28"
    Travel (DH model) 6" 6"
    Seat Post Diameter 31.6mm 31.6mm
    Front Der. Clamp D. Size & Style 31.8mmBottom Pull, Traditional
    Seat Clamp Diameter 31.8mm 31.8mm
    Head Tube Size 1 1/8" 1 1/8"
    Min. Steerer Tube Length 7.8"(200mm) 7.8"(200mm)
    Max Rear Tire Size 2.7" 2.7"
    Rear Hub Spacing 135mm QR 135mm QR
    Max Rear Disc Rotor 8" 8"

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    I would think that a shock with a 1 inch shorter eye to eye length would lower the bb and rake it out a bit, but I never considered the VPS mounts so "I dont know"
    The greenfish geometery chart lists 2 seperate geometry listings but it doesn't specify if it's seperated by different shocks/travel #'s
    I'm still not sure how accurate it is.

    Here's the chart for those who would like to see it.
    Eric

    BTW: Sorry to jack you're thread Eric...

    MOUNTAIN CYCLE SAN ANDREAS Frame Size SMALL STANDARD
    TT length 20.9" 23"
    Wheelbase 42.2-43.5" 43.1"
    HT angle 68-70° 68-70°
    ST angle 68.4-76.3° 68.4-76.3°
    Head tube length 5.0" 5.0"
    Chainstay length 16.25-16.5" 16.25-16.5"
    BB height 13-15.5" 13-15.5"
    BB width 73mm 73mm
    Standover height 27" 28"
    Travel (DH model) 6" 6"
    Seat Post Diameter 31.6mm 31.6mm
    Front Der. Clamp D. Size & Style 31.8mmBottom Pull, Traditional
    Seat Clamp Diameter 31.8mm 31.8mm
    Head Tube Size 1 1/8" 1 1/8"
    Min. Steerer Tube Length 7.8"(200mm) 7.8"(200mm)
    Max Rear Tire Size 2.7" 2.7"
    Rear Hub Spacing 135mm QR 135mm QR
    Max Rear Disc Rotor 8" 8"
    I don't really know what they mean here. It looks like the specs of a small subframe and standard subframe. But the wheelbase, Ht angle, standover height, chainstay length and BB hieght are not going to change with the change of subframes. So maybe they are also considering different shocks. A 6.5 x 1.5 and a 7.5 x 2.0 shock. It's just not clear enough to tell.

  67. #67
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    I don't really know what they mean here. It looks like the specs of a small subframe and standard subframe. But the wheelbase, Ht angle, standover height, chainstay length and BB hieght are not going to change with the change of subframes. So maybe they are also considering different shocks. A 6.5 x 1.5 and a 7.5 x 2.0 shock. It's just not clear enough to tell.
    Well, if you lower the travel with a shorter shock and keep it in one of the middle settings on the VPS.
    Put a 100mm fork on it.
    Run XC size tires no bigger than 2.1".
    You might get it down to 13" BB height.
    I know those wheelbase numbers aren't right. Mine is 41.5" even with the longer fork on it. The wheelbase is going to get shorter, with a shorter fork.
    I also know, that with a 130mm fork and the 7.5 X 2" shock, the head angle is 70 degs. Mine is a little slacker, because I put a 2.4 tire up front with a 2.35 out back and the shock cleat spacer.
    It creates a higher leverage ratio than I'd like to see, but the 6.5 eye to eye shock, gives a person more working room with the VPS, to change the geometry significantly.

    I'd like to see the San An Classic standardized to a 7.5 X 2" shock with 5" travel and shorter upper shock mounts, to give a choice in geometry and BB height.

    Then again, I'm down to about 185 lbs, so the higher leverage ratio, isn't as big a concern to me anymore.
    Still, 4.5" seems just a little to short in travel, for the new forks.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  68. #68
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Does anyone around here, own a 03 or newer San Andreas XC?
    I've gotten the impression, that model is virtually none existent.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    I don't really know what they mean here. It looks like the specs of a small subframe and standard subframe. But the wheelbase, Ht angle, standover height, chainstay length and BB hieght are not going to change with the change of subframes. So maybe they are also considering different shocks. A 6.5 x 1.5 and a 7.5 x 2.0 shock. It's just not clear enough to tell.
    LOL..That's what I meant when I said "I'm still not sure how accurate it is."

    Judging by the 1 inch difference in standover I'm thinking it's both the 2 sizes, and the two shock lengths with some inaccuracies mixed in..

  70. #70
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I'm wondering if the confusion from the specs, is because it crosses multiple years and models of San Andreas.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  71. #71
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I'm wondering if the confusion from the specs, is because it crosses multiple years and models of San Andreas.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I'm wondering if the confusion from the specs, is because it crosses multiple years and models of San Andreas.
    Probably..Have you ever seen an accurate geometry chart for that frame?
    WAY too many variables...

  73. #73
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    Probably..Have you ever seen an accurate geometry chart for that frame?
    WAY too many variables...
    Too many variables is true, however they could at least try harder to update that spec sheet, using a new San Andreas and appropriately sized forks...

    I wonder how that "Mirage" is coming along?
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Too many variables is true, however they could at least try harder to update that spec sheet, using a new San Andreas and appropriately sized forks...
    Well!!!!.Get to work...


    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I wonder how that "Mirage" is coming along?
    Hopefully as well as the freeride frame Nick mentioned in his other post..

  75. #75
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    San Andreas DHS.

    22.5" TT
    15.25" BB height ( with shim ) 15.5" ( without shim ).
    68.5 deg head angle. ( with shim ) 69.5 deg ( without shim ).
    Standover height, enough for me.
    Wheelbase 42" ( with shim ). 41.5" ( without shim )

    Thats with a 130mm fork, 2.4" front tire, 2.35" rear tire and the subframe in the forward position.
    Last edited by Ericmopar; 05-14-2008 at 11:08 AM.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  76. #76
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,250
    I've added some info, to the specs above...
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    Here is the new one that I mentioned above. 7.5" shock that gives 6" travel.
    I forgot to mention that this bike has 20mm shorter then OEM upper shock mounts. At full bottom with the spring taken out of the shock, it has about 1mm of clearace between the swingarm and seat tower and between the swingarm bridge and the main frame just above the front derailer post.


Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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