Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 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
    8,793
    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.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    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.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  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 08:34 AM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    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.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  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 . 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
    8,793
    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.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    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 . 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?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  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
    8,793
    They are a burly looking bike. I'm wondering if a CCDB Air would fit in there?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  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
    8,793
    I did see a coil on a DH frame. The air version I a pretty big shock.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  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
    8,793
    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
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  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  


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •