Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 179

Thread: New stuff.

  1. #1
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157

    New stuff.

    San Andreas 2.0

    New stuff.-193307_10150429339780720_351182540719_17537976_5040700_o.jpg
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  2. #2
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    Zen II

    New stuff.-191958_10150429339860720_351182540719_17537977_3364381_o-1.jpg
    Last edited by Ericmopar; 03-17-2011 at 11:30 PM.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  3. #3
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    I was waiting for MC to post these somewhere besides their facebook page.
    Eric looks like you beat them to the punch LOL

    I really like the Zen 2, If I can get it in "all" black It's mine.."Well" when I can afford it anyway

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    85
    Oh no. This bike is not an San Andreas, never.
    I want back the old chassis with pivot location an geo of the Santa Cruz Heckler
    The new one also looks very very heavy!
    Oh no, i was waiting so long and now

  6. #6
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    I've been wondering what size San An that is. It looks short.
    As far as weight goes. My old 06 was 33lb or so, with a similar build.
    I noticed in some of the photos that there appears to be some kind of geometry / BB height adjustment worked into the yellow link. (At the bottom of it)

    I'm thinking Zen as well Eric. There is something I like about the new San An, but It's not me. Ironically the Zen is more like the San An was, in spirt anyways.

    Is is just me, of do they look like they are using bushings in the pivots?
    That is not a bad thing. Bushings are actually better in high load situations anyways.
    Cartridge bearings are a misapplied marketing hype thing in too many cases.

    I'm also thinking, that the raw frame, heavy duty milled proto pics we saw recently, must be the new Shockwave.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I'm thinking Zen as well Eric. There is something I like about the new San An, but It's not me. Ironically the Zen is more like the San An was, in spirt anyways.
    Yeah I like the "idea" of the San An, but it's not for me. My next build will be a "lightish" trail bike to replace the Fury. Then again the Zen looks fairly "beefy" sort of like the Fury..Perfect LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    Is is just me, of do they look like they are using bushings in the pivots?
    That is not a bad thing. Bushings are actually better in high load situations anyways.
    Cartridge bearings are a misapplied marketing hype thing in too many cases.
    WOW I think you might be right, In the close up pics It doesn't look like it has room for cartridge bearings. I do like the idea of bushings too though. May be needle bearings?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I'm also thinking, that the raw frame, heavy duty milled proto pics we saw recently, must be the new Shockwave.
    The bike in the proto pics appeared to have an adjustable head tube or headset that adjusts the head angle?,so you are probably right. I don't see that in the bikes in this post.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,665
    Be interesting to see the geo and weight on these suckers. I had an original San Andreas back in the day and it was an awesome bike. Not sure I would go for a high/forward single pivot now but would love to try one out and prove myself wrong.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    70
    Got a 2003 SA, and if I hadn't got a Tracer VP a couple of years ago, I'd be very tempted by these. Like the SA2, a bit of a Santa Cruz toptube, Commencal swingarm (theirs used to look like the SA monocoque) Tremor curves, SA mast and look - and the red looks a bit like the Foes Hydro too. Cool distinctive love or hate looks (very MC still) and if it rides as good as looks, it should be a winner!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    I was lucky enough to see the prototype Zen II in the flesh as I ride with g regularly.

    Unfortunately due to me being vertically challenged, there is no chance of me ever riding one of g's bikes, so I can't comment on how it rides (Touching the pedals and reaching the bars is just out of the question) although g was raving about it.

    My thoughts, it is a lot lighter than it looks and I know they tweaked the proto frame to get it down further. It looks really solid and is definitely going to be stiff. Its not a super light bike (but then I don't thin it was designed to be), but is definitely competitive with others on the market in its travel range. Personally I can live with a bit of strength as a trade off anyway, but weight is not an issue on the Zen.

    Couldn't give you geometry figures from looking at the bike, other than to say it all looked right, if that makes any sense.

    It will be interesting to see the difference in weight between the Zen and San An, but I am not expecting it too be too much at all.

    I'll be getting a San An myself, but the Zen really catches the eye. Hard call between the two, but I am going for the extra travel for some of the steeper trails around here.

  11. #11
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    Well, the more I look at it, the more the new San An is growing on me.
    I can't afford a new bike though.
    That head angle is really slack on the San An.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    70
    I keep coming back to the photo and get that dangerous 'new bike' itch, but with 4 nice bikes (including an 03 San An) I can't really scratch... Cool looks with visual MC cues, but like it's evolved. Worth the wait - hope it rides well and gets the good reviews - it'd be good to see them on top again. In the meantime...MUST...BE...STRONG.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by playbike
    Oh no. This bike is not an San Andreas, never.
    I want back the old chassis with pivot location an geo of the Santa Cruz Heckler
    The new one also looks very very heavy!
    Oh no, i was waiting so long and now
    I agree, they should call it something else. That just alienates anyone who knows what a SA is. Same with the carbon XC bike - alienation. I wish MC would stick to what made them a cult bike builder and only change the things that drove them out of business.







    Sent from my Iphone

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    I wish MC would stick to what made them a cult bike builder and only change the things that drove them out of business.
    I agree with this alot. But i love the new bikes and hope they come out soon,and be available to be purchased in frame only not like the new carbon which is complete bike only. Also wonder the travel on these as well as the geometry. Looks like a 1.5" headset which would be nice and the swing arms look the same except for the yellow links. Interesting very interesting.......just got a Rumble and Fury now this. Gonna need some more room.
    Mike G.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by lv4sndz
    I agree with this alot. But i love the new bikes and hope they come out soon,and be available to be purchased in frame only not like the new carbon which is complete bike only. Also wonder the travel on these as well as the geometry. Looks like a 1.5" headset which would be nice and the swing arms look the same except for the yellow links. Interesting very interesting.......just got a Rumble and Fury now this. Gonna need some more room.
    Mike G.
    Frame only is a must. People who buy Trek, Giant and S are into complete builds. people who buy Mountain Cycle, build their own.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    178
    Agree with Mountain Cycle Shawn.
    That bike has not 1 feature that resembles the San Andreas.
    Really should of got Robert Reisinger to design the new San Andreas. That would have been an awesome touch.

    Josh



    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    I agree, they should call it something else. That just alienates anyone who knows what a SA is. Same with the carbon XC bike - alienation. I wish MC would stick to what made them a cult bike builder and only change the things that drove them out of business.







    Sent from my Iphone

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    164
    Well the new web page is up and running and it looks like the bikes are not gonna be available as frame only. Looks like they are gonna come with forks wheels and cranks. Not impressed at all, i already have my own parts that i want to put on it. Don't need all the other stuff. Please please MC make these available as frame only...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by lv4sndz
    Well the new web page is up and running and it looks like the bikes are not gonna be available as frame only. Looks like they are gonna come with forks wheels and cranks. Not impressed at all, i already have my own parts that i want to put on it. Don't need all the other stuff. Please please MC make these available as frame only...
    X2!!!!!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by ozbmx
    Agree with Mountain Cycle Shawn.
    That bike has not 1 feature that resembles the San Andreas.
    Really should of got Robert Reisinger to design the new San Andreas. That would have been an awesome touch.

    Josh
    I actually talked to Robert about that a while ago, as I had a new idea for him. He said that the SA was incredably difficult and time consuming to design as a monocoque, and that he wasn't interested in doing it again. That's why the frame geometry was never modernized as longer travel bikes became the norm. He kinda said that it couldn't be modernized and work. That's why the Tremor had bad breakage problems.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    In my opinion, I wish SA would have been like a Porsche 911: A simple basic design that is true to it's roots, that gets better year after year after year. A bike that 20, 30 or 40 years down the road, would resemble the original design. At one time, when everyone started going with longer suspension, I thought the SA was really outdated. But with the invention of stable platform shocks, a simple single pivot with a low BB is all you need. The only problem with the classic SA is the high BB. If the original could be redesigned with a low BB, a better ratio and maybe a link similar to the Nickel and Butcher to give a little better performance, I think that MC wouldn't be able to make them fast enough.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    If the original could be redesigned with a low BB, a better ratio and maybe a link similar to the Nickel and Butcher to give a little better performance, I think that MC wouldn't be able to make them fast enough.
    Judging by the photo,You "basically" just described the Zen 2 LOL (minus the seat mast of course)
    The first thing I thought of when I saw the Zen 2 was IMO: A better looking Nickel..
    I see what you are saying though...

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    Judging by the photo,You "basically" just described the Zen 2 LOL (minus the seat mast of course)
    The first thing I thought of when I saw the Zen 2 was IMO: A better looking Nickel..
    I see what you are saying though...
    The new SA should look like a SA. And the Zen is really, travel wise closer what the SA should be. I guess what I mean is a SA sould be no more then a 130 - 140mm travel trail bike. More like a Nickel.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by mcrumble69
    The first thing I thought of when I saw the Zen 2 was IMO: A better looking Nickel..
    The Nickel is much sexier.

  24. #24
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    I've looked at the close up pics on other websites like Facebook and the new San Andreas is at least semi monocoque. The upper tubing is stamped and welded halves.
    The San An has a seat mast, although it's not adjustable.
    It's a modified single pivot.
    It's red.
    I wish it had a red or black swingarm though.
    I see the San An in that bike.

    The Zen uses the same basic pivot point and I think from the photos uses the same swingarm. I wish the one model wasn't black and white though, because it makes me think of a police bike. I wish it was all black.

    Getting back to the San An 2.0, I do like that multi colored black, white and red paint job.
    Actually I like the red too, I just wish it had a red swingarm.

    The original San Ans were great bikes, but they were outdated in later years. The new bike addresses those issues while still maintaining the spirtit of the original.

    I'm actually glad my original SA broke a year ago, it's given me a fresh look on what needed to be done.
    My only real concern is this. Is that new San An as short as it looks, or is there a long version.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    I'm with Eric. The San An was dated and as good as they were, slightly tweaking the design wasnt going to work. while a few "hardcore" MC fans may like this sort of thing, it would be committing commercial suicide to be releasing an outdated bike.

    Personally I see quiet a few references In the new San An to the old. Can't wait to ride one myself.

    Still tossing up between the Zen and San An though. Zen is probably the more suitable bike for my riding but I keep going back to the San An.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I've looked at the close up pics on other websites like Facebook and the new San Andreas is at least semi monocoque. The upper tubing is stamped and welded halves.
    The San An has a seat mast, although it's not adjustable.
    It's a modified single pivot.
    It's red.
    I wish it had a red or black swingarm though.
    I see the San An in that bike.

    The Zen uses the same basic pivot point and I think from the photos uses the same swingarm. I wish the one model wasn't black and white though, because it makes me think of a police bike. I wish it was all black.

    Getting back to the San An 2.0, I do like that multi colored black, white and red paint job.
    Actually I like the red too, I just wish it had a red swingarm.

    The original San Ans were great bikes, but they were outdated in later years. The new bike addresses those issues while still maintaining the spirtit of the original.

    I'm actually glad my original SA broke a year ago, it's given me a fresh look on what needed to be done.
    My only real concern is this. Is that new San An as short as it looks, or is there a long version.
    The shortness might be an illusion, because of the shape of the frame and the 1/4 view. But the main pivot looks a little wimpy to me.

  27. #27
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    The shortness might be an illusion, because of the shape of the frame and the 1/4 view. But the main pivot looks a little wimpy to me.
    I think the pivot looks that way because they might have gone back to bushings. I don't know that for sure though.
    The load is spread out too. It's spread out between the main pivot and the "link" . I don't know what to call that "link" yet.
    It looks like it should have great lateral rigidity.

    BTW, I'm all for a return to bushings. Cartridge bearings are mostly a marketing thing.
    That's why Turner has been using bushings for years. They have better shear strength, are cheaper, and lighter.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  28. #28
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    The shortness might be an illusion, because of the shape of the frame and the 1/4 view. But the main pivot looks a little wimpy to me.
    Wimpy? What? Wooooohahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    OK, from the guy who DESIGNED the bike and worked with the engineers and suppliers to get it here...

    1. TT length. It's deceptive. It's actually longer than you think.

    2. BB/Pivot. I think you'll have a hard time finding stronger or stiffer. Seriously, that area is all anchored in a single, massive, CNC piece. There is no room for flex. Read the catalogue for a better description.

    3. The design: We were never going to do a full mono, nor ever will again. Why? For the reasons mentioned above somewhere which include but are not limited to: sizing issues, geometry issues, change issues, modification issues, design issues, cost issues.

    Also, from a design POV, I'm happy. Why? Because you either like it, or not. That is a good design because if someone just said 'I don't mind it' then I failed in my job. Good designs polarise people, bad designs don't. If a design grows on people, that's even better. Look at all the 'real' MC's of past, they all did the same thing - you loved or hated them.

    I never intended to recreate the old bikes, but rather give them a logical evolution, which I think is what has been achieved.

    4. Frame only. No go. Several reasons:

    a. Our research shows that most shops and buyers want completes and those that don't make up the small upper end of the market. I know I would want to walk in and buy the bike I want, not have to build it up. I lack the time and prefer just to ride. Plus, I know pricing wise, I can get a much better deal as a complete for the same spec I would otherwise put on it. I think most people will have a hard time doing a better spec for the same price as what we are going to offer.

    b. 'Racing Chassis' are actually a good compromise and you'll find more companies slowly doing the same thing (because of reason C below). We deliver to you the most expensive parts at a good cost and throw in a few extras for good measure, which you may or may not use. Now, read point c...

    c. Time to get your heads around this fact. Bikes are increasingly being designed as 'closed systems'. Sure you may have a fork or a shock lying around, or even a headset. But our and ALL bikes are now designed around a set of predefined parameters. That includes headsets and forks. Sure, go put your own on but the bike will handle differently than intended - I experienced that with a set of wheels I was testing recently. We give the Angleset with all cups to help you dial in the bike BUT, we designed the bikes to allow for this so it will handle as intended.

    With 2x10 and the like now also placing more demands on clearances, the simple joy of going out and buying a set of cranks to slap on your bike will become less and less easy. Don't blame us, that aint our doing and causes us enough headaches, and is why we include cranks we know WILL work.

    4. You can all come at us and say you shoulda, coulda but didn't. That's fine. Thing is, we had to make the calls, make the decisions and in a market that is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate from both a tech, spec and consumer point of view, that is a LOT harder than it seems sitting on the sidelines - having done both now, I know.

    Sooooo...

    Mountain Cycle is a brand that has always polarised people and things have not changed. During it's previous heyday, it had people that made calls not everyone agreed with at first but made sense later, I think those same sort of people are back at the wheel. We are going to do things differently. We are going to make you stop and think. Most of all, we are NOT going to do things like everyone else - there are too many areas where we have to play 'the game' but I for one will try and not to everywhere else.

    And with that, I step off and get back to work.

    Cheers!

    g: General Manager + Design
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog
    I'm with Eric. The San An was dated and as good as they were, slightly tweaking the design wasnt going to work. while a few "hardcore" MC fans may like this sort of thing, it would be committing commercial suicide to be releasing an outdated bike.

    Personally I see quiet a few references In the new San An to the old. Can't wait to ride one myself.

    Still tossing up between the Zen and San An though. Zen is probably the more suitable bike for my riding but I keep going back to the San An.
    X3
    Love it, or hate it, the SA old and new are true works of art..
    While I have been lusting after the original SA since I first saw one in a magazine in the late 80's? I also agree that it was in serious need of an update..
    Actually the only reason I bought my Fury instead was because of the SA's size,and BB height. (I'm Short)

    IMO: The new design is certainly unique enough to deserve the San Andreas name..

    That said, it's not a toss up for me,The Zen 2 would fit my riding style Perfectly!!!!
    Now if only my Fury would die already
    Last edited by mcrumble69; 03-23-2011 at 09:44 PM.

  30. #30
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Send me your Fury... I've got a hammer here that will help it die
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    Send me your Fury... I've got a hammer here that will help it die
    PLEASE Don't tempt me...........

    BTW: I "finally" registered it for the Speedshop today

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    412
    end of the day MC has never made run of the mill frames, thats not why we love MC for, "Often Imitated never Duplicated".

    I think the new SA takes the hardcore trail/all-mtn concept and moves it forward without making it a retro toy/imitation but a true thill machine just like the old rig was when it first hit the trail.

    As a MC team rider i can not wait to get hold of a SA and show you guys what its capable of.

  33. #33
    BRI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12
    Ha! Well said, Gerard. Is that San An 2.0, really being called a San An? Is this because of similar geometry or purposing to the old San An, or some other reason? I like it the way it looks, but it sure doesn't look like my bike :-)

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    Send me your Fury... I've got a hammer here that will help it die
    No, send it to me. I have enough parts to bring it back alive. Mountain Cycles should live on forever!

  35. #35
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Brishette,

    Here's something to consider.... does a 1960's Ford Mustang look anything like a 2010 Mustang??



    g
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  36. #36
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    Brishette,

    Here's something to consider.... does a 1960's Ford Mustang look anything like a 2010 Mustang??



    g

    I'm going to say yes. The current Ford Pony Car, has lines very similar to the 69 Fastback.
    As does a 2010 Dodge Challenger, have lines almost identical to a 70 - 73 Challenger.

    Also, not to leave out Chevy, the new Camero's lines are based heavily on the 69 Camero and Firebird.

    Humph!
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  37. #37
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Hmmmm. Yes and no and certainly no more than the say the old and new San An's.

    The amount of similarities between, say the cars. and the bikes are roughly the same. There are common lines but proportions, details etc. etc. all change.

    Now, get a side profile of the SA20 and the SA and compare.
    Last edited by G..; 03-27-2011 at 09:09 PM.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I'm going to say yes. The current Ford Pony Car, has lines very similar to the 69 Fastback.
    As does a 2010 Dodge Challenger, have lines almost identical to a 70 - 73 Challenger.

    Also, not to leave out Chevy, the new Camero's lines are based heavily on the 69 Camero and Firebird.

    Humph!
    What ^ he said.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    I'm going to say yes. The current Ford Pony Car, has lines very similar to the 69 Fastback.
    As does a 2010 Dodge Challenger, have lines almost identical to a 70 - 73 Challenger.

    Also, not to leave out Chevy, the new Camero's lines are based heavily on the 69 Camero and Firebird.

    Humph!

    Yes also agree. Like Porches and Lamborghini they all have distinct shapes and features that they keep to.
    Glad i didn't put my name down for the new San Andreas.

    Josh

  40. #40
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    I see the family resemblence to the old San An.
    I still agree with the redesign, just not the "no frames" policy.
    The toptube is monocoque.
    It's still a single pivot with some improvements.
    It still has the high chainstays. The stays have been triangulated. That will improve rigidity.
    I'm going to miss the adjustable seat mast.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  41. #41
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    For those prone to reading long winded diatribes....

    http://www.mountaincycle.com/blog88
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    178
    Hey G,
    Is MC looking at bringing out a New BMX frame? Especially now it is in the Olympics.
    Thats what got me into MC was the Aftershock. Still my fav, i have a NOS frame that will stay that way. Would love a new MC monocoque BMX frame to keep it company.
    Josh

  43. #43
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Ya know, it's an idea but not really considered it right now.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    178
    Thanks G.
    Let me know if you do. Would love to get one.
    Josh

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    412
    the old san andreas was a bit edgier and not loved by all when it came out, a true all-mtn mussle bike before all-mtn was a name used, the new SA still has all the classic mussle bike running through its DNA, its just moved with the times, its still edgier than most on the market, its still a bad ass all-mtn rig, it has a semi-perimeter frame that looks like no other on the market today, Its good to have the SA back!

  46. #46
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    Quote Originally Posted by elbry
    the old san andreas was a bit edgier and not loved by all when it came out, a true all-mtn mussle bike before all-mtn was a name used, the new SA still has all the classic mussle bike running through its DNA, its just moved with the times, its still edgier than most on the market, its still a bad ass all-mtn rig, it has a semi-perimeter frame that looks like no other on the market today, Its good to have the SA back!
    I can agree with that.
    I remember when people couldn't understand why anyone would ride a "Downhill" bike XC. LOL.
    It didn't matter that I and others tried to tell them, that our ride times usually dropped with a good dually.
    It took most people years to figure it out. Then, they started telling me what I already knew for several years... like they invented the crap...
    Even when the trail situation might have dictated a hardtail (for pure speed) a dually was much more fun to ride.

    I still wish I could get it in all red or orange fade.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by elbry
    the old san andreas was a bit edgier and not loved by all when it came out, a true all-mtn mussle bike before all-mtn was a name used, the new SA still has all the classic mussle bike running through its DNA, its just moved with the times, its still edgier than most on the market, its still a bad ass all-mtn rig, it has a semi-perimeter frame that looks like no other on the market today, Its good to have the SA back!
    This reminds me of a conversation I just had with a friend..
    For the last 10 years or so he thought that the SA was extremely ugly and hated it,
    He could never understand why I liked them so much..
    BTW: he is not a MC hater he owns a Shockwave. (another love it or hate it frame)

    "Well" 2 weeks ago on a ride he "finally" saw one in person..
    Like all of us MC owners, he "had" to stop and talk to the guy so he got a really good look at it..
    Long story short he understands now

    I kind of felt the same way about the SA 2.0.
    When I first saw the pics. I didn't like it at all. Now the more I look at it, the more I like it.
    The design and attention to detail is just incredible.
    Like I've said before, Love it or hate it, You still can't deny the fact that it's a true work of art..
    This can be said about both old and new,and that feeling alone is just one more reason IMO: It deserves the San Andreas name.

    I can't wait to see one in person

    BTW: Ford did a really nice job on the retro styled Mustang. It's a modern revamp done right just like the Challenger.
    Nothing beats the originals though!!!!!

    EDIT: I Just read the blog after writing this.. Sounds awfully similar to whats above ^^^ LOL
    Last edited by mcrumble69; 03-29-2011 at 07:09 AM.

  48. #48
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,157
    I'll say one thing. This is generating lots of views, which equals publicity.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,977
    When and where will be able to see/ride a new SA in So Cal. I guess I really should see one in the flesh, I mean metal before I judge.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    412
    sea otter..

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •