Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 114
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: eauxgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    821

    San Andreas 2.0 ?

    What's the deal with these frames? I like the design but I worry that they may be on the "function following form" side of the spectrum. Are they worth $900?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Well, in my opinion, the geometry is kind of strange. The medium has a whopping 34" standover height. The shock hits the link. The paint is thin enough to see through in places. The welds are nothing to write home about. They use a BB and rear axel standard, that never became a standard. They are heavy compared to the competition. You are buying with no warranty or company to stand by it. And to top it all off: if my dog were that ugly, I'd shave its rear end and make it walk backwards. I may have forgotten a couple things, it's hard to remember it all. It's really just a Mountain Cycle San Andreas in name only. Nothing about it is Mountain Cycle or San Andreas. Even the 2.0 name is lame. San Andreas is an earthquake fault and a 2.0 earthquake would be a non-event. Oh wait, maybe 2.0 is a suitable name!

    The only thing good about it is the Sotto designed Turn Table rear suspension design, minus the shock rubbing on the link.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    I almost forgot: I sent two emails to Crosslakes, they are selling the new, now defunct, MC stuff. I asked how warranty issues would be handled. I never got a response. So, I have to assume that warranty issues will not be handled.

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation: eauxgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    821
    You sound like a MC hater from back when the first SA hit the market; maybe it's time to change your handle and move on.
    Last edited by eauxgod; 05-23-2012 at 09:34 AM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by eauxgod View Post
    You sound like a MC hater from back when the first SA hit the market;.
    What? I've only owned 6 of them since 1996. I'm glad you find them to your liking. I don't care if they paid me to take one. It's no good to me once the first proprietary part breaks and it can't be replaced, which will happen.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Well, I just bought a San An 2.0 to go with the Zen II I already have on the way. I'll post a review and pics once I have the frame in my hands and have built it up.

    Anyone in australia need/want a battery frame (with MRP cranks and guide), its surplus to my needs now.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    San An turned up today. I'll start a build thread when I start building, but here are a few pics for now. Hopefully i get this finished before the Zen turns up.

    I am really happy with the frame though. Looks great, Quality seems good, but I haven't ridden it obviously.

    Got Marzocchi TST2's for the front. Ritchey bars, easton Stem, Hope/Syncros wheels, hope brakes.

    Wasn't going to use the turn cranks, but they look really nice so I will stick with them and give them a go. Done a bit of reading about the BB30 standard, seems in theory to be great, but there are plenty of options to make my old cranks fit if I decide to. I like the PF30 standard on my roadie, so the BB30 just looks like the logical evolution of that.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan1.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan2.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan3.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan4.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    After putting a few bits together, some preliminary thoughts on the bike based on previous comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Well, in my opinion, the geometry is kind of strange. The medium has a whopping 34" standover height.
    Mine is a medium and unless you measure close to the head tube, 34" is not going to be correct. Don't have the exact figures at the moment. Still changing the axel in my hub, but mocking up where the rear would sit got me close. I'll give the exact figures tomorrow night.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    shock hits the link. The paint is thin enough to see through in places. The welds are nothing to write home about.
    Mine doesn't seem to hit the link after letting the air out of the shock and putting the suspension through a full cycle. I have heard of others that do, but the rubbing has been overcome by flipping the shock.

    Paint, no different to any other bike I have ever bought from other brands. A few flaws if your being picky, but nothing different to previous bikes from various brands. I know gerard has posted he wasn't happy with the paint but mine seems fine.

    Welds, same as the paint in my opinion, on par with previous bikes from different brands. The centre weld on the top tube just puts the welds more in your face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    use a BB and rear axel standard, that never became a standard. They are heavy compared to the competition.
    I actually like the BB30 standard. To me it is better than the PF30 on my roadie and still allows me the option of using adapters to run other cranks if needed, Best of both worlds maybe given the options?

    As for the 35mm spindle, but of a non event. If you don't like them swap them out for something else. I haven't used them but they look nice enough. I am not a fan of the 42/30 chain rings and will be gearing down, but other than that I have no complaints.

    Rear end, 142mm is on a bucket load of bikes now. Lucky for me you can adapt hope hubs so I don't need new wheels, but 142 is pretty common now days.

    Weight, no idea at the moment, but I suspect with a decent build it will be ball park with other 6.5"frames,

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    You are buying with no warranty or company to stand by it. And to top it all off: if my dog were that ugly, I'd shave its rear end and make it walk backwards. I may have forgotten a couple things, it's hard to remember it all. It's really just a Mountain Cycle San Andreas in name only. Nothing about it is Mountain Cycle or San Andreas. Even the 2.0 name is lame. San Andreas is an earthquake fault and a 2.0 earthquake would be a non-event. Oh wait, maybe 2.0 is a suitable name!
    I guess opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Warranty, fair call, but my experience with some brands means warranty means nothing anyway. I can name a couple of big brands that have refused to honour frame issues in the past. For the price these things are selling at its more than worth the risk.

    Ugly, hardly. I quiet like the look of it in the flesh. I wasn't sure based on photos, but now I have one it looks a lot better than I was expecting. Each to their own I guess.


    Anyway, I won't be riding it this weekend as it doesn't float, hopefully next weekend I can review it, unless someone with one comes along and reviews it first.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JRA009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    173
    My chime in

    -Only the Marzocchi Shock made contact with the link (the X-Fus is the OE spec).

    -Most quality hubs are adaptable to 142mm (and MC was not the first to use this). This was a strength thing and sure it's not on your $500.00 bikes but most wheels today are 142 adaptable. Look at Azonic, probably the best "value" in a wheel-set today the front hub can be qr,15 or 20 and the rear can be 135 or 142 (they also sell the 150 but it is a different hub shell).

    -The BB is PF30 not BB30 and there are adapters to use standard cranks if you don't want to give Turn a spin. Yes the gearing was not ideal for me either, but I run a single on just about everything I ride so the 30t would have worked and than a basher on the big side.

    All that said, I will not be building mine and will be selling it soon <yes I need some money too>. All White San Andreas 2.0 (just like the picture above).

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog View Post
    After putting a few bits together, some preliminary thoughts on the bike based on previous comments.



    Mine is a medium and unless you measure close to the head tube, 34" is not going to be correct. Don't have the exact figures at the moment. Still changing the axel in my hub, but mocking up where the rear would sit got me close. I'll give the exact figures tomorrow night.



    Mine doesn't seem to hit the link after letting the air out of the shock and putting the suspension through a full cycle. I have heard of others that do, but the rubbing has been overcome by flipping the shock.

    Paint, no different to any other bike I have ever bought from other brands. A few flaws if your being picky, but nothing different to previous bikes from various brands. I know gerard has posted he wasn't happy with the paint but mine seems fine.

    Welds, same as the paint in my opinion, on par with previous bikes from different brands. The centre weld on the top tube just puts the welds more in your face.



    I actually like the BB30 standard. To me it is better than the PF30 on my roadie and still allows me the option of using adapters to run other cranks if needed, Best of both worlds maybe given the options?

    As for the 35mm spindle, but of a non event. If you don't like them swap them out for something else. I haven't used them but they look nice enough. I am not a fan of the 42/30 chain rings and will be gearing down, but other than that I have no complaints.

    Rear end, 142mm is on a bucket load of bikes now. Lucky for me you can adapt hope hubs so I don't need new wheels, but 142 is pretty common now days.

    Weight, no idea at the moment, but I suspect with a decent build it will be ball park with other 6.5"frames,



    I guess opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Warranty, fair call, but my experience with some brands means warranty means nothing anyway. I can name a couple of big brands that have refused to honour frame issues in the past. For the price these things are selling at its more than worth the risk.

    Ugly, hardly. I quiet like the look of it in the flesh. I wasn't sure based on photos, but now I have one it looks a lot better than I was expecting. Each to their own I guess.


    Anyway, I won't be riding it this weekend as it doesn't float, hopefully next weekend I can review it, unless someone with one comes along and reviews it first.
    Right on! Keep us informed on how it goes. The one I saw had all those issues, maybe it was an early run. Glad yours is a good one. I think the graphics are really cool and I think the rear end works good.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by JRA009 View Post
    My chime in

    -Only the Marzocchi Shock made contact with the link (the X-Fus is the OE spec).

    -Most quality hubs are adaptable to 142mm (and MC was not the first to use this). This was a strength thing and sure it's not on your $500.00 bikes but most wheels today are 142 adaptable. Look at Azonic, probably the best "value" in a wheel-set today the front hub can be qr,15 or 20 and the rear can be 135 or 142 (they also sell the 150 but it is a different hub shell).

    -The BB is PF30 not BB30 and there are adapters to use standard cranks if you don't want to give Turn a spin. Yes the gearing was not ideal for me either, but I run a single on just about everything I ride so the 30t would have worked and than a basher on the big side.

    All that said, I will not be building mine and will be selling it soon <yes I need some money too>. All White San Andreas 2.0 (just like the picture above).
    I'm wondering if Spinergy Enduros are adaptable to the 142mm and X-12. Maybe there is a slight possibility, not much, that I may be able to be talked into a Zen. Oh god did I just say that?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    I'm wondering if Spinergy Enduros are adaptable to the 142mm and X-12. Maybe there is a slight possibility, not much, that I may be able to be talked into a Zen. Oh god did I just say that?
    I have never looked into Spinergy, but I know Hope, DT Swiss and Stans hubs are all interchangeable between 135/142 and different axel configurations.

    Spinergy are a good wheel so it wouldn't surprise me if you can get a new end cap and axel.

    Its interesting, I was in the LBS the other day and it looked like most of the full suspension specialised bikes were 142. Ironhorse have been using it for years on their DH bike. Due to the fact you can convert many hubs, I think I prefer it to the 150mm on my DH bike. I want to buy a new DH frame but am limited due to the fact my Hadley Hubs are 150mm.

    Get the Zen, you know you want it. I think my Zen will get used more than the San An. 6.5" inches travel is probably overkill on my local trails which is why I originally picked the Zen. Now Ive got it I am stoked with the San An.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3

    San Andreas 2.0

    I recently purchased a 2011 limited edition San Andreas 2.0 and have started to build it. So far I have no problems with anything. I only am having trouble trying to find the front derailer that fits best. Any suggestions/ input?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails San Andreas 2.0 ?-2012-06-16_06-43-59_339.jpg  


  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by dedicatedvoc View Post
    I recently purchased a 2011 limited edition San Andreas 2.0 and have started to build it. So far I have no problems with anything. I only am having trouble trying to find the front derailer that fits best. Any suggestions/ input?
    Your bike is looking good. What number is yours?

    I believe the front mech is an e-type front mech without the back plate (Product). I will be getting one this week, so I will let you know.

    I'm also ditching the 42/30 rings for 38/26. Race Face turbines seem to be the go. The other option was to get an FSA BB30 converter and run my XTR cranks. I think I will just change the rings. For me though, 42/30 is too tall a gearing.

    Here is some progress shots of my build. Rear mech has gone on since these shots, just waiting for the chin rings and mech to ride.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan1.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan2.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan3.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan4.jpg  


  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JRA009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    173
    Shimano E type. There was a thread on this on the old MC site... Not sure it's still there but SRAM also has one ( I can't remember there call out numbers).

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    They are a burly looking bike. I'm wondering if a CCDB Air would fit in there?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    They are a burly looking bike. I'm wondering if a CCDB Air would fit in there?
    Been wondering the same thing to be honest. Its a fair cavity the shock goes through, so there is plenty of space. I am pretty sure when the MC site had the build options, the CCDB was on there.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    I did see a coil on a DH frame. The air version I a pretty big shock.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JRA009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    173
    The CCDB was on the Shockwave Prototype. I don't think it will be an issue.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    18
    How is the cable routing? The routing design looks like an after thought, seeing as how the rear brake cable squeezes between the shock linkage and the swing arm. Seems like a high wear location. Is it really that tight?

    What is the weight so far?

    You got me interested in getting one.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by db840 View Post
    How is the cable routing? The routing design looks like an after thought, seeing as how the rear brake cable squeezes between the shock linkage and the swing arm. Seems like a high wear location. Is it really that tight?

    What is the weight so far?

    You got me interested in getting one.
    The cable routing is quiet neat and tidy once everything is on. All the cables are well out of the way and there is enough room past the linkage that nothing should rub.

    I took part of the yellow linkage off to get my brake caliper in, the other way would have been to remove the caliper and feed the hose through. I was too lazy to go that way.

    Weight wise, I am sub 14kg's without really trying. My wheels and forks are in no way light units and I could dump a lot of weight there if needed. For what I'm using the bike for though, this weight is fine.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3
    I am going to be running formula RX brakes with Hope Saw rotors, any opinions?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Ive never used those brakes, so I can't help you with how they go.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by dedicatedvoc View Post
    I am going to be running formula RX brakes with Hope Saw rotors, any opinions?
    I would start with the reviews. You can usually learn a lot there.
    Formula Brakes RX Disc Brake System Reviews

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Finally, after what seems like an eternity I have finished the build. Will be a few changes in the future, but this will have me rolling for now.

    The bike is set up as a 2x9.

    Pretty happy with the end result myself. Now if the rain would stop falling and allow the trails to dry out a bit I might be able to do more than a bit of street riding with limited single trail.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan1.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan2.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan3.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-sanan4.jpg  


  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    What's the final weight? Let's us know how it rides.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Its about 14kg or 30.8 pounds.

    I have a few bits on their that are far from light, the wheels will eventually be changed, the 55's are pretty weighty and the pedals are overkill, so you could go a fair bit lower.

    Better fork, wheel and pedal choice on my build would drop it to 13kg I imagine. That said, for what it is to be used for I am not unhappy with the weight. If the Zen built up to that weight I would be disappointed.

    I won't be changing the forks in a hurry, despite the weight penalty, I do like them. The wheels will be changed at some stage in the future though.

    Rides nice enough in the street, but a carpark test really doesn't give a great indication. Still need to tweak the seat height (thats why the post isn't cut yet), and I will be getting some wider bars (crank bros Opium 3's).

    Hopefully it dries up and I get out this week.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Looks nice. That's not a bad weight, for that much travel.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    First ride today and it was a bit of a disaster. Its been really wet up here and i went out so we could update the trails website for our area (Welcome | Glenrock Trail Alliance). Turns out even after a few days of sun it was a lot wetter than expected and I probably shouldn't have been on the trails.

    Onto the bike. Rode really really well. Pedalled a lot better than I had expected and the suspension is pretty much not noticeable pedalling. Handling wise the bike is very nimble and the front end seems to float over the trail but still has plenty of feel when descending and cornering.

    One thing that struck me, was the bike felt a lot smaller than it looks.

    Very happy with the ride to be honest, if the Zen turns out to just be a smaller version of this I will be really happy.

    Unfortunately my rear hope exploded at the calliper after 2km's (right at the start of the descent in the first photo) so my riding was all done without a rear brake in wet and slippery conditions. I'll hold my full judgement until the bike until the rear is sorted and the trails dry out.

    I've posted a few pics of the bike on the trails though.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails San Andreas 2.0 ?-ride1.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-ride2.jpg  

    San Andreas 2.0 ?-ride3.jpg  


  30. #30
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Thanks for the report, it's very encouraging.

    Looking at the geometry between the Zen II and San An 2.0. it appears the Zen II may feel a bit bigger- steeper HTA, slacker STA, and lower BB height.

    I hope you get a better ride in next time once your trails dry up and you get the issue with the rear hub addressed.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    Thanks for the report, it's very encouraging.

    Looking at the geometry between the Zen II and San An 2.0. it appears the Zen II may feel a bit bigger- steeper HTA, slacker STA, and lower BB height.

    I hope you get a better ride in next time once your trails dry up and you get the issue with the rear hub addressed.
    It was the rear brake that blew. Hopefully it just needs new seals. I suspect the brake will be fixed long before the trails dry. It's raining again already.

    It was interesting that as I got to the trail head, a few people commented on the bike, all loved it but one person went as far as to say how much they loved the top tube. Sort of surprised me as that seems to be the bit people single out to criticise.

    My headset for the Zen is in, so I can get on with building it while the brake is being fixed.

  32. #32
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Thatís interesting to hear. I read so much negative about the San Andreas 2.0 and Shockwave regarding aesthetics, especially the top tubes. I would like to see one in person. It reminds me of when MC first hit the scene, folks either loved it or hated it.

    When Mountain Cycle was lambasted on the net due to these latest offerings I was puzzled as to why? I mean, I've read all the supposed negative points, yet still shake my head every time I see any of the new MC's and think they nailed it. I think it's a real shame.

    Sounds like the weather will leave little choice but to focus on building up your new Zen. Mine is scheduled to arrive tomorrow.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    Thatís interesting to hear. I read so much negative about the San Andreas 2.0 and Shockwave regarding aesthetics, especially the top tubes. I would like to see one in person. It reminds me of when MC first hit the scene, folks either loved it or hated it.

    When Mountain Cycle was lambasted on the net due to these latest offerings I was puzzled as to why? I mean, I've read all the supposed negative points, yet still shake my head every time I see any of the new MC's and think they nailed it. I think it's a real shame.

    Sounds like the weather will leave little choice but to focus on building up your new Zen. Mine is scheduled to arrive tomorrow.
    Aesthetics will always be a personal thing. My brother isn't a fan of the top tube, but most people have liked it. The majority of people judging it though have never (and probably will never) seen it in the flesh. The photos on the net don't do it justice.

    All that said, it comes down to how a bike rides, and the San An is a sweet ride from the time I have has on it. It really is a shame they won't be done on a larger scale, because the ride qualities are awesome.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    Thatís interesting to hear. I read so much negative about the San Andreas 2.0 and Shockwave regarding aesthetics, especially the top tubes. I would like to see one in person. It reminds me of when MC first hit the scene, folks either loved it or hated it.

    When Mountain Cycle was lambasted on the net due to these latest offerings I was puzzled as to why? I mean, I've read all the supposed negative points, yet still shake my head every time I see any of the new MC's and think they nailed it. I think it's a real shame.

    Sounds like the weather will leave little choice but to focus on building up your new Zen. Mine is scheduled to arrive tomorrow.
    They nailed it alright. Nailed the coffin shut. Like I keep saying, it doesn't matter how good they are, just wait till a part breaks, then its all over.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    They nailed it alright. Nailed the coffin shut. Like I keep saying, it doesn't matter how good they are, just wait till a part breaks, then its all over.
    What are you on about? If anyone nailed the coffin shut then its the people who sold the company (or the people who bought it). Having a gripe about the potential for things breaking and not being replaceable, well thats not a reflection on the bike as such, thats an issue with whoever made the decision to sell the company and wind things up in the first place.

    The real shame is that these bikes weren't given a go in the market pace.

    The bikes really are awesome and the majority of people who have seen mine in the flesh love it. Since mine has been together I know of a few people over here who have made the purchase and got one themselves. I think the sad thing is they would have sold theses bikes at the full price once people started riding them and didn't have to rely on the comments/opinions of people who never actually saw (or even worse) rode one.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Like I said, wait till the first part breaks. It will be hard to find a used part to replace a broken one. And a new part is out of the question.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Like I said, wait till the first part breaks. It will be hard to find a used part to replace a broken one. And a new part is out of the question.
    So don't buy one. Your inference that the bikes are rubbish due to the availability of parts that may, or not, break is a pretty weak one. Replacement parts though are hardly a reflection on the bike, its design or quality though. I've ridden proflex for 20 years and still do. Things can be replaced on bikes long after the parts dry up if you think about a solution. If/when something goes, we will cross that bridge at the time.

    The bikes are quality though and very much worth a serious look at. We have established you think its too much of a risk, for a lot of us though the bikes are definitely worth a look.

  38. #38
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Like I said, wait till the first part breaks. It will be hard to find a used part to replace a broken one. And a new part is out of the question.
    After surveying my new Zen, I would say it looks like that will likely be a very long wait.

    The only real potential concern would be either the front triangle or the swingarm. The pivots are common cartridge bearings and a new link, eccentric, or pivot hardware could easily be machined.

    As I said, I am taking a gamble, but when considering the quality and flat out burliness of construction it seems a very low risk. It is hard to deny the value at such a low price point.

    Iím sorry the Mountain Cycle brand you knew and loved is no longer, But I truly feel that, in spite of everything, if you were holding this frame in your hands and seeing what Iím seeing, you would feel it honors the Mountain Cycle of yore and rightfully holds a place amongst the ranks of itís lineage.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    But I truly feel that, in spite of everything, if you were holding this frame in your hands and seeing what Iím seeing, you would feel it honors the Mountain Cycle of yore and rightfully holds a place amongst the ranks of itís lineage.
    That quote is spot on. Sums the bikes up perfectly.

  40. #40
    PVGNA PRO PATRIA
    Reputation: NslrPrtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    161
    Looks good!

    Sorry about the first ride problems though.

    Question...what's your BB height?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by NslrPrtn View Post
    Looks good!

    Sorry about the first ride problems though.

    Question...what's your BB height?
    I did measure it but I honestly can't remember. When I get the bike back from the shop servicing my brake I'll measure it for you.

    Fingers crossed I have it for the weekend.

  42. #42
    PVGNA PRO PATRIA
    Reputation: NslrPrtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    161
    It must not have been crazy high then...

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by NslrPrtn View Post
    It must not have been crazy high then...
    Definitely not crazy high. I wish I had the thing back so I could help you (and go for a ride myself). Fingers crossed I can measure it for you next week.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by eauxgod View Post
    What's the deal with these frames? I like the design but I worry that they may be on the "function following form" side of the spectrum. Are they worth $900?
    a LBS here in minnesota has a fully built san an 2 on there floor going for 2000. X9 elixer azonic outlaws... seems like a good deal. id take the risk if i had 2 laying around right now. lotta people hate it, will be paying attention to you guys on how it rides though. THat shop is telling me they just bought the rest of the MC stock so i should beable to grab a zen or san an frame in the near future

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11
    I know its a little of the track but did the shock wave ever get into production,I know there were pre orders being placed.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by TugboatComplex View Post
    a LBS here in minnesota has a fully built san an 2 on there floor going for 2000. X9 elixer azonic outlaws... seems like a good deal. id take the risk if i had 2 laying around right now. lotta people hate it, will be paying attention to you guys on how it rides though. THat shop is telling me they just bought the rest of the MC stock so i should beable to grab a zen or san an frame in the near future
    What shop?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    As I understand it there was only ever a few prototypes made.

    I would have loved to have gotten one of the shockwaves.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog View Post
    As I understand it there was only ever a few prototypes made.

    I would have loved to have gotten one of the shockwaves.
    yea me too

  49. #49
    PVGNA PRO PATRIA
    Reputation: NslrPrtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    What shop?
    The only shop that ended up with MC stock...

  50. #50
    PVGNA PRO PATRIA
    Reputation: NslrPrtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by TugboatComplex View Post
    ...has a fully built san an 2 on there floor going for 2000. X9 elixer azonic outlaws... so i should beable to grab a zen or san an frame in the near future
    Unless they are holding out on inventory, all of the Zens and SAs have been for sale for quite a while through their website and ebay account. I believe all of the size L SAs are gone so others sizes, along with the Zens, may be gone soon too.

    Was their built SA red or white? What fork was it built with?

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •