Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 179

Thread: New stuff.

  1. #1
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,251

    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
    4,251
    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
    4,251
    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
    4,251
    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
    1,667
    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
    4,251
    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
    12,658
    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
    12,658
    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
    12,658
    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
    12,658
    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
    12,658
    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
    12,658
    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
    4,251
    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
    12,658
    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
    4,251
    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
    12,658
    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
    4,251
    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
    12,658
    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
    4,251
    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
    4,251
    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
    4,251
    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
    12,658
    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..

  51. #51
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Nope. We will not have demo bikes to ride at Sea Otter. Looky, looky only.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    164
    Hey Gerard any idea when these new frames are gonna be available for purchase??? I understand you probably don't have a exact time just a round about time frame.
    Mike G.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    I'm a no ride, no buy kinda guy!
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 03-29-2011 at 10:11 PM.

  54. #54
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Hey Mike,

    I am chasing the final ETD from our factory. There are a lot of people asking and some ready to drop deposits on the RC.SP frames.

    Sooooon! And we'll let everyone know ASAP.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  55. #55
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    You're buying a much sexier Nickel, so it should not matter, right?
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    You're buying a much sexier Nickel, so it should not matter, right?
    Typo, sorry. I ment: I'm a no ride no buy kinda guy.

    It all depends. I need to see some specs, I need to ride before I buy and I need a frame only. And, I consider myself to be a painfully average MTB consumer. Whoever gives me what I want, gets my hard earned coin. It's really that simple. Your direct competitors are companies like SC. At bare minimum, MC needs to offer the options that companies like SC can offer. MC is not a Trek, Giant or Specialized and they never will be. It's essential that they offer, frame only. There is no good reason not to sell frame only, It gives the consumer more choices. Part of MC's problem, since day one is a long streak of bad decisions. Some of which, the average MC buyer isn't aware of. If MC is going to make it in this bad economy in a saturated bike market, MC is going to have to make some better decisions.

  57. #57
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn
    MC is not a Trek, Giant or Specialized and they never will be. It's essential that they offer, frame only. There is no good reason not to sell frame only, It gives the consumer more choices. Part of MC's problem, since day one is a long streak of bad decisions. Some of which, the average MC buyer isn't aware of. If MC is going to make it in this bad economy in a saturated bike market, MC is going to have to make some better decisions.
    I'm afraid I'm having to agree with Shawn, for the most part, on this.
    I am not opposed to complete bikes, or rolling chassis, but the fact we can't get a frame only just might kill a sale to me in the future, no matter how much I might want a Zen II or San An 2.0.
    I not only prefer to build my own spec, because of the unbelievably harsh climate and riding conditions, but it's a money matter as well.
    When a person has a set of good wheels, fork etc, you want to find a frame that has the correct geometry and will properly fit the majority of those parts.
    I don't mind getting a new derailleur, seat post etc, but when I replace a broken frame, I don't want to have to buy a new fork, wheels etc, that probably aren't suited to my riding environment anyways.
    Out here you build a bike to survive first with appropriate desert gear, then worry about choice two, which is what will handle best and be the best compromise between weight and strength.
    On top of that, Specialized, Santa Cruz etc don't build better bikes, but they can sell a complete one more easily, because of name recognition.

    I'm also running into more people talking about building their own now. The reason being, that the big name bike companies are selling crap OEM Wheels, Shocks etc on bikes that are over $2500.
    Some of that stuff says DT Swiss, Fox etc. It is OEM spec though and is ruining everyone's reputation that gets attached with it.

    If the bike industry thinks people haven't started to figure that out, then they have their collective heads in their asses.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  58. #58
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    My last bit on this, then you can discuss amongst yourselves:

    To run a new Mountain Cycle frame, you will have to buy at minimun:

    A PF30 BB
    A 2x10 crank
    A direct mount FD
    A Taper or 1.5 headset
    A X12 Rear axle and hub

    We also strongly suggest:

    A Cane Creek Angleset

    Now, I doubt anyone has these parts lying around right now but if you feel you can buy them cheaper, as single items, than we can supply them, then you are doing better than we.

    In regards to OEM spec, esp. wheels, Eric, I could not agree with you more. You won't see such wheels on our bikes and I ride what we are speccing. Not OEM stuff these days is often right rot.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    My last bit on this, then you can discuss amongst yourselves:

    To run a new Mountain Cycle frame, you will have to buy at minimun:

    A PF30 BB
    A 2x10 crank
    A direct mount FD
    A Taper or 1.5 headset
    A X12 Rear axle and hub

    We also strongly suggest:

    A Cane Creek Angleset

    Now, I doubt anyone has these parts lying around right now but if you feel you can buy them cheaper, as single items, than we can supply them, then you are doing better than we.

    In regards to OEM spec, esp. wheels, Eric, I could not agree with you more. You won't see such wheels on our bikes and I ride what we are speccing. Not OEM stuff these days is often right rot.
    That's only 5 parts. I can do without an Angleset and parts can be had on Ebay for less then wholesale.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    30
    Will 650b wheels fit in the new mtn cycle san andreas or zen?

  61. #61
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,251
    It isn't designed for 650b.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  62. #62
    75% Mountain cycle
    Reputation: SanAnMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    321

    The new SA looks too much like this.....

    I totally agree with those that compared the original design of the San Andreas to the Porsche 911, it was a classic timeless design that typifies great engineering. I’ve tried many of the “updated” designs out there and many of them ride very well. But, in my experience it has always been at the expense of simplicity. The original san Andreas rides just as good in my book without 25 pivots, linkages, and cobbled with support tubes and gussets. There is art in simplicity, as what was encompassed in the San Andreas that started out on the late 80’s and was refined and updated to about 2005 (or was it the 2006?) model.

    I have not ridden it but I sure hope there is a following for this new version of the San Andreas. I hope it is successful, rides great, and it gets great reviews. But, I am personally disgusted with it and will continue to ride and love my 2004 San Andreas Classic. If I had one wish (after world peace and personal financial independence) it would be that MC would go back to the classic design of ’05 or ’06.

    To me, I think the new SA 2.0 looks way to much like this Big Box Store brand bike.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails New stuff.-1210200715356pm17307-p-812.jpg  


  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    164
    So whats the plan with the new Shockwave 2??? Is that also not gonna be available as frame only???
    Mike G.

  64. #64
    Just the tip!
    Reputation: HHMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    152
    Gotta say, Gerard, you guys did a fantastic job on the new look of the San An and Zen! Not quite the same, but I can see the lineage.

    I'm not so bothered by the basic rolling chassis spec since you're using Marzocchi stuff and other equipment I'd end up buying anyway. That is except for the wheels... what's the poop on the Kore wheels? How do they compare engagement wise to other hubs? I usually build up with Kings or Hadleys so either the wheels have to be something bulletproof special or they gots to go.

    I am a tiny bit concerned about how the top tube of the San An humps up so high and back. The original Nomads were that way and SC learned the error of that decision pretty quick. No smashed nuts > aesthetic humpiness.

    Please post the geometry soon. That'll be the make-it-or-break-it purchasing info for me.
    Last edited by HHMTB; 04-16-2011 at 10:26 PM.
    "Adventure begins where good judgment ends."

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    I think the graphics are the best I have ever seen on a MTB and the cable routing things are brilliant!!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    I initially wasn't sold on the cable guides, that said they have grown on me aesthetically, but its the flexibility they offer in cable routing that is the real bonus with them.

    Watch other brands do something similar in the future.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog
    I initially wasn't sold on the cable guides, that said they have grown on me aesthetically, but its the flexibility they offer in cable routing that is the real bonus with them.

    Watch other brands do something similar in the future.
    If they haven't, they should get a patent on them.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    I have been debating about getting into this thread, simply out of the "if you don't have something nice to say" train of thought thats bouncing around. But the more I see of MC in its current format, the more I feel I have to speak up.

    I should give some background. I have been an MC fan for years. Had a few Shockwave 9.5s, an original shockwave, and a rumble. All killer. Helped out a big MC dealer, and loved the brand and what it stood for.

    I have to say that looking at how Mountain Cycle is today, you guys seem to have lost your minds.

    The new bikes look absolutely terrible. The San An (which I think is blasphemy to call it that) looks like something that would come out of Walmart. Just looking at it, its over manipulated, over done, and an eyesore, to say the least.

    The new Shockwave is equally awful looking. It reeks of something one of the random euro brands would have made in 1999. Its boxy, the paint jobs are terrible looking, and its just unappealing visually as a whole. The mainframe makes the swingarm look like its made of spaghettini. Again, this is just visually, I am not commenting on the ride, obviously.

    I won't even begin about the non-inspired and out dated geo on the carbon hardtail.

    But visuals are important. Every biker knows there are more than a few companies that survive solely on visual appeal and marketing, and many companies that combine both beautiful marketing and stellar products. In my opinion, Mountain Cycle has no only failed to do both, but have failed to evolve a brand image that was unique and innovative.

    Mountain Cycle, under Mr. Reisinger (sp), was a unique brand. I won't say they were the best riding bikes, but the bikes were clearly Mountain Cycles. They had their own look, a unique (if not polarizing) ride, and a solid and well deserved fan base. My 9.5s were some of the most fun bikes I have ever ridden, bar none, despite having some incredibly odd numbers on them.

    Mountain cycles have always been visually unique, but that uniqueness was a result of functional design. The bikes looked odd so that they could ride well. These new bikes scream of production just for the sake of production. Tubes bent and manipulated just so you can try and fit in with the crowd, and done (from first glance) that looks to be quite badly overdone and unnecessary if I can be honest. These are not Mountain Cycles, at least not in the way Mountain Cycle used to be. These are bikes with a mountain cycle badge on them.

    Even the website is terrible. :P


    Look, I love what MC used to be, but I think you guys need a serious look at what you are doing. Consumers aren't necessarily any smarter than they used to be, but they are used to things being a certain way. I know more than anyone how important marketing can be. Combine an unpolished, unfocused brand image with bikes that are so unappealing, and I really do worry about the future of the MC brand.


    I do wish you guys luck, I really do, but I do have some serious doubts....
    Stuff.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    412
    Kore gears all works real well, as used by the MC factory team

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Have to say, I could not disagree with you more. To my eyes the bikes look pretty good. Are they better than other brands offerings aesthetically, well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think they look a lot better than other bikes on the market. Not sure how you not liking the looks of a bike spell doom and gloom for the brand.

    The majority I have spoken to about the bikes like what they see. I'll be buying one (either San An or Zen) and I know others keen to see it in the flesh.

    Or more interested in how they ride though than how they look (despite them looking pretty good).

    A lot of people seem to be complaining that the bikes (or brand) aren't the same as they were. Too reproduce what was done 10-20 years would be a disaster. But with moving on you will always alienate those who have an emotional attachment to the original. I do think the new bikes have taken elements of the old and updated the concept. You obviously disagree, but that doesn't spell the end of the brand. It does show that MC are still polarising opinion though.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    I can see your point, but you have missed something here too. This is an MC forum, which means a lot of MC diehard fans, which means a love that sometimes isn't so rational. Trust me I know. I have had love for GT for years, and I can't figure out why.

    Go outside this forum and ask people, and you'll see its much different.

    I also agree that a brand should evolve, but like with anything you should always know where you're from. The new bikes don't seem like an evolution at all to me, but rather a restart, and one that (judging solely from various forum reactions) isn't so well received. Its a whole new ballgame out there these days, and I can't help but think that MC might have misjudged it badly. This is just an opinion of course, so I could obviously be wrong.

    But I worry that I'm not, and another iconic brand dies a slow death. Hope not.
    Stuff.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    It's all going to depend on how they perform. If they bring something new and better to the table, it's going to be a hit and the looks will grow on people. If not, well I hate to speculate. I do like the graphics.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    I know what it is like to be a diehard fan, I have (and continue to) ridden proflex bikes for 20years.

    That said, if proflex were resurrected and put out copies of their classic frames, while it may appeal to a small hardcore minority fan, it's never going to capture the wider riding public.

    What I see is MC grappling with these issues and co lifting user base between new and old. I think they have done a good job, unfortunately not everyone will go along for the ride.

  74. #74
    G..
    G.. is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    189
    Ya know, I've been following the comments since the Pink Bike article went live and I have to say, it smacks of the usual internet trolls (partially why I do not spend too much time on forums any more - many have become a vitriolic, cathartic voice of self important people... but more on that at a later date).

    Now before you jump up and down, I'll tell you why...

    Over the past 4 days we have had literally hundreds of riders see the bikes, walk around them and absorb. There have also been more than a fair number of magazines and industry people all sharing their views.

    I have been around long enough to know how to read when someone likes something, vs. when someone does not... it's actually pretty damn easy to tell. The vast majority of people loved what they saw, from the graphics to the designs. I'm not just saying that, it's fact. Dealers came and asked if they could deal, people asked when they could buy, magazines asked when can they ride and competitors came and said how great the line looks. Sea Otter, at this point in time, was a huge success for Mountain Cycle.

    What does that mean? Maybe the bikes look better in person. Or maybe, everyone in internet land just wants the same old thing, for every company to follow the same old formula and be dictated to by a few companies. I saw a new 'I can't tell you what bike' before any magazine did a day before the show. A BIG famous name brand. I stood there looking at it and it was pretty nice. But you know what? Put that bike up against a raft of bikes and it will not stand out.

    If mountain biking and mountain bike design is about appealing to the LCD, then thanks for all the fish, but I'm out of here. Judging buy the raft of comments from many though, that's exactly what the mtb world wants these days, bikes that all look like they all came from the same inbred family, just with a different paint job and brand slapped on the side. If the auto world was so narrowly driven, we'd all be driving cars that look like Camry's. Of! Hold on....! That was GM in the US... and look what happened to that.

    But here's the clincher. The very simple fact that the bikes have caused so much of a stir tells us we did it right. If no one said anything, we'd be in trouble but the fact that all the naysayers were so challenged that they felt the need to vent their view, means quite simply there are more than an equal number that like what they see, they just don't feel the need to read their own voice, in the accepted view for every negative view on a forum there are 10 unvoiced positives.

    As far as evolution vs. restart vs. whatever..... whatevhar! I'll dare anyone to sit where I've sat for the past 1.5 years and take on the juggling act of relaunching Mountain Cycle, dealing with MODERN MASS PRODUCTION and the almost countless obstacles, to come up with something more on brand than what we did. If you can, you can have my job, I'll more than gladly give it to you because clearly, you are a much better designer and manager than I am.

    And you think Mountain Cycle's are ugly????

    PS: MC Shawn, the bikes ride great.
    ---
    Design Guy [SanAndreas 2.0, Zen II]

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by G..
    Ya know, I've been following the comments since the Pink Bike article went live and I have to say, it smacks of the usual internet trolls.

    But here's the clincher. The very simple fact that the bikes have caused so much of a stir tells us we did it right.
    I don't think anyone here has the reputation of being a troll. So, I think that is unfair to say. Being upset with the negativity after all your hard work, is understandable.

    A lot of bikes in the past have caused a stir, and a lot of those bikes have been big failures. Again, the proof will be in their performance.

    I hope your right and I hope MC makes it big time. Will I buy one? Only if the performance is there and I can buy a frame only.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11

    No good

    Quote Originally Posted by G..

    And you think Mountain Cycle's are ugly????

    PS: MC Shawn, the bikes ride great.
    The bikes are ugly plain and simple!

    You are bias because you had a hand in creating the nightmare. And you are talking about people here being a troll? Dude you just crapped on and pointed to a pink bike on DM that is owned by a 13 year old girl!!!

    So what if people don't like your design? We have that right because you design the bikes for us the consumer. Your judgement to barf out of your fingers just goes to show how garbage of a company MC has become. I won't own another one and I doubt I will see anyone on them this season unless they are on a free one. Even then I'm sure they are commenting of the horrible look. And yeah looks don't decide how it is going to ride at all but it matters.

    Lets hope you post again because I would LOVE to hear some more awesome PR work from you.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Dude, there is a nice way to say things, without being a jerk. the bikes are far from ugly.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    I'm being a jerk because I never said I wasn't. Although the jerk came out when a MC employee took jabs at everyone that had an opinion about your bikes and then decided the smart thing would be be to jab at a bike on Dropmachine that is owned by a young rider. Way to support the community there.

    In your opinion they are not ugly but my opinion is that they are...very. Best thing would be to maybe not have a forum dedicated to MC if they are unable to except criticism no matter how harsh it is.

    So yeah...I'm a jerk for having a strong opinion about something. Aaaaannyways! lol

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by reaction
    I'm being a jerk because I never said I wasn't. Although the jerk came out when a MC employee took jabs at everyone that had an opinion about your bikes and then decided the smart thing would be be to jab at a bike on Dropmachine that is owned by a young rider. Way to support the community there.

    In your opinion they are not ugly but my opinion is that they are...very. Best thing would be to maybe not have a forum dedicated to MC if they are unable to except criticism no matter how harsh it is.

    So yeah...I'm a jerk for having a strong opinion about something. Aaaaannyways! lol

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    I'm calm. Trust me.

    I love panda's

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    An interesting response. Lets take it one at a time right?

    Those trolls you mention? Theres another name for them. They're called potential customers. If the comments posted were positive, would you be calling them trolls still?

    I'd imagine that the comments you received were quite positive, and that magazines did ask about the bikes, and competitors did come over and say the bikes looked great. But let me ask you this. Are people going to come over and trash the bikes to your face? Are magazines going to NOT want to get content to write about, good or bad? And are competitors going to come over and ridicule the bikes in front of you? Of course not. I'm not saying that you don't deserve the comments and positive kudos, but honestly what do you expect people to say? That is except for people like me, who can't be bothered to lie. And I'm not thrashing you. I'm simply posting my observations.

    And then, to comment on another company's bike citing that it won't stand out? Come on man, seriously? Trek/ Santa Cruz/ Giant/ etc aren't exactly the most visually outlandish out there, but man do they ride well. And last time I checked standing out isn't the main point of a bike. If all you wanted to do was stand out, well you've succeeded, but in the same way a clown does in a crowd of supermodels.

    As well, you seem to have missed my point. To clarify, my point isn't that you should build boring, cookie cutter bikes. Not at all. I've always LOVED the 9.5 because it was anything BUT cookie cutter. MC was like a made scientist factory building kickass, insane bikes. They looked looked incredible, rode great, and the suspension was awesome. The graphics were well done, and as a complete package they were brilliant. Its what I loved about my 9.5. Same with the San An.

    The new bikes fail to keep that tradition. While you've definitely avoided looking like a cookie cutter brand (and instead look like the $199 special at WalMart), you've also built bikes that are apparently tweaked and complicated just for the sake of being tweaked and complicated. Anybody with even the slighted idea of design can look at the new San An and see that it didn't need to be anywhere near as complicated a rear end/ shock house as it is. The UPWARD looping toptube, thats pretty innovative too since most companies do the opposite to provide standover. Good thing you guys eliminated that annoying problem. The bolt on dropouts are nice though, credit where its due.

    To top it off, you guys are eliminating frames? Really? Whos idea was that? Nobody cares if you can spec the bike better. Building is half the fun. I haven't bought a complete bike in years. If that was the case, Intense, Turner and a slew of others would have gone under. Having completes only screams budget operation (kind of like Airborne), and assists only in further pushing MC from the elite brand image. Theres nothing wrong with that, but it certainly isn't a continuation of the brand image.

    I also find it quite funny that a brand thats essentially been dead for so long comes back and pushes riders to adopt new standards if they want to ride the bike. Thats pretty ballsy, and a big gamble. Nothing like pushing out new bikes with new standards, especially when you have almost 0 standing in the industry as a brand. Turner, Intense...they can get away with things like that, IF they really had to. Yet funny enough they don't, because they want to make it easier on the riders. You guys have removed that choice, and force riders to adopt parts they might not want to run. What if they had a full XTR build kit ready? Are you going to even begin to suggest whatever catalogue taiwan cranks you have on there are better than XTRs?

    I still think that MC screwed up hard here. The bikes are overly complicated for no clear reason, they are forcing riders to adopt parts and standards that are questionable at best (I realize 35mm might be stiffer, but you get on some Saint cranks and tell me how noodley they are), the paint jobs look like they were designed in the 80s (or by an 11 year old), the website gives no real brand identity, and even IF the bikes ride well, I very VERY highly doubt they ride well or better than whats on the market already. Certainly not so much better that it justifies having to adopt new standards.

    I think at the end of the day the real story will be told by the sales numbers. I have to say I cannot see a single reason why ANYONE would choose a MC right now, unless the pricing is rock bottom. The brands image is dead in the eyes of the growing young riders (except the Battery, but where the hell did that go?), there are a lot of proven designs and brands out there doing things much better, and to produce such ugly bikes on top of it...tough sell. And you're talking to a guy that, again, LOVED the MC of old.

    By the way. That Pink Bike on Dropmachine you just crapped on? Thats the bike of a 13 year old girl. A girls whose WHOLE FAMILY used riding to beat an unhealthy weight problem. A family that loves their daughter so much, they built her the bike of her dreams. A family that, through riding and building bikes like that, are a happy, loving cohesive riding family machine.

    Hope digging at it felt good. I'll let her know what you thought.

    Actually, such a misguided and inappropriate comment shows me exactly why MC is pushing out the bikes they are. Its a shame. I really did love the company.

    Best of luck.
    Last edited by dropmachine.com; 04-18-2011 at 11:55 PM.
    Stuff.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by reaction
    I'm calm. Trust me.

    I love panda's
    See, it worked!

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com
    By the way. That Pink Bike on Dropmachine you just crapped on? Thats the bike of a 13 year old girl. A girls whose WHOLE FAMILY used riding to beat an unhealthy weight problem. A family that loves their daughter so much, they built her the bike of her dreams. A family that, through riding and building bikes like that, are a happy, loving cohesive riding family machine.

    Hope digging at it felt good. I'll let her know what you thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by reaction
    Dude you just crapped on and pointed to a pink bike on DM that is owned by a 13 year old girl!!!

    And yeah looks don't decide how it is going to ride at all but it matters.
    I don't think the comments were aimed at the user, more the bike. But to be clear......

    If a 13 year old gets one of the new MC's, bought by there parents to help them loose weight and bond, it will be immune from someone disliking its aesthetic qualities or even commenting on them. Its OK for you to not like a bike to be overly critical of something you haven't ridden, but its not OK for someone to dislike another?

    Irrespective of colour or rider age, I would say that I'd take the new MC's over that bike any day.

    Honestly, how you can pass judgment and declare a bike, the company and anyone involved in it a failure without ever throwing a leg over it makes it sound like you have an agenda. MC have evolved from what they were 20 years ago, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coldass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    462
    I think the new Mountain Cycle and the new designs are some of the best things to come along in MTB world for some time.

    I can't wait to get my hands on a MC 29er. G, I'm a coming for ya!

    The new SA looks killer. I can't wait to see it real live. The design features and parts selection for the builds are some of the most well thought for a LONG time. For once a brand has done more than take the latest Shimano, SRAM pack.

    The graphics are a bonus.

    Rock it Mountain Cycle! Great job G-baby.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    Wow...Either there is something I have missed or you are all very very very blind and you enjoy the walmart look.

    I'm seriously done with this thread it's just stupid... Enjoy riding the components and the standards they tell you to. WOW...just wow.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mcrumble69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,056
    WOW some harsh words here..
    MC Has always made unique-different looking bikes and that's why I like them.
    Of course some will absolutely hate them. That's how it has always been with MC.

    The fact that people are talking and voicing their opinion, Negative or Positive means to me that MC has stuck to their roots,and done something right..
    As the saying goes "Any Press Is Good Press" Yeah the haters will voice an opinion,but that will also give others a better chance to see them,and possibly like them.

    BTW: I think the main reason we are seeing so much hate in the forums is because the people who actually like the frames are afraid to voice their opinion in a forum filled with hate..

    The saddest part of all this is these opinions are being voiced on looks alone..It's really the ride that counts.

    Me personally, I really like the look of the new bikes, and I give props to G for designing bikes that really stand out..
    I've always looked at MC frames as the Jeep CJ of the cycling industry.(my favorite vehicle) Totally unique looks and a really fun ride!!!!

    If they ride as good as "I Think" they look,I'm sold...

    Now lets see some geometry and sizing info G....

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Coldass
    I think the new Mountain Cycle and the new designs are some of the best things to come along in MTB world for some time.
    Really? Which part exactly? What is it that they are doing that beats innovation from companies like Turner, Intense, Santa Cruz, Giant...
    Stuff.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com
    Really? Which part exactly? What is it that they are doing that beats innovation from companies like Turner, Intense, Santa Cruz, Giant...
    Lets be open minded and see how they ride.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Agreed Shawn, the ride will be key. But as I said, i sincerely doubt that they will ride better than anything else on the market, probably best to hope at being on par. There are a number of companies with single pivots that are just dialed, so its a tough market.

    All i've said is the bikes visually look terrible, they look overdone for no discernible reason, and that it seems like the brands image and origin are gone. Just kinda makes me sad, ya know?

    Shame they didn't just overhaul the old 9.5, dropping a bit of weight and tuning the numbers to make sense (mine had a 15.5" bb lol). Put a 14"bb on there and a 64 HA, and you have a perfectly viable bike in todays market.
    Last edited by dropmachine.com; 04-19-2011 at 06:02 PM.
    Stuff.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    That's not all you have said, you have already, multiple times written off the way they are likely to ride based purely on looks.

    You don't like the way they look, that's fine. I'm not a fan visually of Turner or Giant, but acknowledge the are both fine riding bikes, I've also owned plenty of ugly bikes purely because they ride well. Looks are a personal tase, but how you candraw conclusions about the bikes performance is beyond me.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Yeah, it's really unfair to pass that much judgement on something you haven't ridden. That is getting to be trollish!

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    I have not written off the way they ride, not at all. I can only guess at the suspension action. They're just a single pivot with a rate modifying link, like so many other designs. Nothing revolutionary, but solid enough, at least in the main ring. I'm curious how smooth the pivots will be with the bushings. Can't imagine they'll be as fluid as bearings, but should be fairly solid for sure.

    What I've said is that they are more than likely not going to be better than anything else out there currently. MC has always had very unique geometry, so I'm curious to see if that continues. Not bad, not amazing, just unique. Polarizing, if you will.
    Stuff.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    You did say, "I sincerely doubt that they will ride better than anything else on the market, if that well at all."

    You have to admit the last bit pretty much implies that they aren't going to ride well at all.

    I do agree that the bikes are polarizing, and to be honest, i like that they are, but it does mean people will generally sit well on one side of the argument as to the bikes worth. I just wish people would reserve judgement until they are able to be ridden.

    The big question is though........when can we ride them?

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog
    You did say, "I sincerely doubt that they will ride better than anything else on the market, if that well at all."

    You have to admit the last bit pretty much implies that they aren't going to ride well at all.
    My bad there, thats not what I meant but its clear thats what it seems like. I edited it above.

    "i sincerely doubt that they will ride better than anything else on the market, probably best to hope at being on par."

    I just meant that they are likely to be even with some of the bikes out there, but I do doubt they will beat the best ones, or reach some new pinnacle of performance. They look straight forward enough, but single pivots are hardly the most forward thinking design these days.

    Anyways, sorry about the miswritten note there. Didn't mean to say they will ride like poop.
    Stuff.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,658
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com
    My bad there, thats not what I meant but its clear thats what it seems like. I edited it above.

    "i sincerely doubt that they will ride better than anything else on the market, probably best to hope at being on par."

    I just meant that they are likely to be even with some of the bikes out there, but I do doubt they will beat the best ones, or reach some new pinnacle of performance. They look straight forward enough, but single pivots are hardly the most forward thinking design these days.

    Anyways, sorry about the miswritten note there. Didn't mean to say they will ride like poop.
    In post #81 you say that they are complicated. Here you say that they are straight forward. Dude, do you know the difference between a hole in the ground and your external sphincter? (google it) If not, stick you finger in both and lick it. It will be a learning experience for you. With your reasoning, it would be like me saying that I am not going to your web site, it must suck because I don't like the name.

    As far as single pivots go, with todays stable platform shocks, anything more is a big waste ot time.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Weren't you the one telling Reaction to play nice above? Guess the gloves are off.

    Reading comprehension is a skill. Learn it.

    I'll lay it out much more simply, so you can follow along.


    The suspension system is simple. Its a single pivot in line with the middle-ish ring (based on a 2x10, from the looks of it) with a shockrate controlling linkage. I haven't looked at the linkage too closely, but its more than likely to help build a progressive curve at the end. Again, a simple system that some like, some do not. Comes with good points and bad points.

    The bikes themselves seem overly complicated. The San An particularly is overworked to the point of wonderment. There is no real discrenable reason for the shock housing to be as overbuilt and over worked as it is, nor is there a good reason for the TT to bow UPwards instead of going down and curving back up to meet the seat tube, other than trying to look neat. All that does is make for a strange looking bike, and reduces standover. For what? How is that possibly a feature?

    Second, your comment on stable platform shocks fixing everything is a joke. Learn how to tune suspension, and you'll see why. Stable platform shocks are for XC racers and badly designed bikes. if you don't know how to appreciate a well designed suspension system with a fully open shock, then you don't really have any place commenting. A fully open Fox RP23 on well designed suspension platform is a thing of beauty. Platform damping dirties it and turns a nicely lively shock into a dead wet towel.
    Stuff.

  97. #97
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,251
    All I know is this. I've ridden both good four bar and single pivot. I've also test rode DW at one point in time.
    I'm not willing to go back to much more complicated and expensive suspension.
    When done right and set up right, none of them perform better than the others. They just have minor advantages in certain situations.

    One of the reasons I will never buy a Santa Cruz, is because of their two faced advertising.
    They talk bad about single pivot, and yet they still sell them. Those SC single pivots also get great magazine reviews... Hmmmmm.
    Specialized is just as bad. They have extolled the virtues of Horst Link, but also build single pivots off and on over the years.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  98. #98
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com

    Second, your comment on stable platform shocks fixing everything is a joke. Learn how to tune suspension, and you'll see why. Stable platform shocks are for XC racers and badly designed bikes. if you don't know how to appreciate a well designed suspension system with a fully open shock, then you don't really have any place commenting. A fully open Fox RP23 on well designed suspension platform is a thing of beauty. Platform damping dirties it and turns a nicely lively shock into a dead wet towel.
    Since virtually all duallies have stable platform shocks, you just admitted they must all suck! LOL!
    Actually, VP bikes, weather from Giant, Santa Cruz, Intense, DW still have some serious disadvantages. Mainly they are expensive to maintain. Oh yeah, I forgot that multi pivot bikes are heavier because of the bearings, so they have to take weight out somewhere else to compensate. I've met some Turner and Yeti owners that ride the same stuff as I do at about the same skill level and they've had to warranty Their bikes more than once a year. That's why they are so expensive, it's because you are paying in advance for those swingarms. LOL
    The pivot kits for those bikes are terribly expensive.
    I don't like Giant's take on it at all. Highly overrated, not bad but not a miracle.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Ericmopar
    All I know is this. I've ridden both good four bar and single pivot. I've also test rode DW at one point in time.
    I'm not willing to go back to much more complicated and expensive suspension.
    When done right and set up right, none of them perform better than the others. They just have minor advantages in certain situations.

    One of the reasons I will never buy a Santa Cruz, is because of their two faced advertising.
    They talk bad about single pivot, and yet they still sell them. Those SC single pivots also get great magazine reviews... Hmmmmm.
    Specialized is just as bad. They have extolled the virtues of Horst Link, but also build single pivots off and on over the years.

    If you think Santa Cruz's marketing is two faced, you simply don't get the message. They aren't saying single pivots suck. They are saying they are a compromise, in this case for price. And they're right. The single pivot stuff is cheaper, but doesn't ride as well. The VPP stuff is more, but has better suspension action. Seems simple to me.

    The SP bikes are great little bikes, but the VPP stuff is much better technically. That said, some prefer the ride of a single pivot, and theres nothing wrong with that. Myself, I prefer a dual link design, or a good Horst. Thats personal preference though.

    Saying that none perform better than others, thats simply not true. Each has their drawbacks for sure though, but a fully active, well designed system with neutral braking is definitely ideal. Single pivots are not that system.
    Stuff.

  100. #100
    Maaaaan
    Reputation: Ericmopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com
    If you think Santa Cruz's marketing is two faced, you simply don't get the message. They aren't saying single pivots suck. They are saying they are a compromise, in this case for price. And they're right. The single pivot stuff is cheaper, but doesn't ride as well. The VPP stuff is more, but has better suspension action. Seems simple to me.
    Well. I don't agree with that. I've seen some of Santa Cruz's ad's that really attack the single pivot and then on another page you find a add for a Heckler or Bullit. I wish I could find one and post it.
    You sure are an expert in ad hype. I've ridden most types of duallie and know they aren't that different. I've had plenty of brake jack from Horst Link bikes.
    I know there are others here that have ridden more than one type of suspension and we aren't going back anytime soon to a four bar or VP based design. In fact many MC fans started on other types of suspension and aren't dying to go back.
    Communist Party Member Since 1917.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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