Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Are we next

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11

    Are we next

    Have,nt been on this forum for a few weeks but I just noticed there is no more Chumba forum! Are we next!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    May well be. Was there activity on the chumba forum? Still a bit on here.

    If it goes there is still the two facebook pages for advice.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11
    Prob just as must use as us I spose.I dont know if there's a chumba facebook page,I guess there is.Looks like it's just me and you in australia sammydog.If I win the 5million in the lotto we'll start MC back up again,what do you think?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    there is a few of us in Oz.

    I ride a bit with Gerard (not that he is on here anymore) and Donny who runs one of the FB pages (https://www.facebook.com/groups/mcfanclub/) is in Sydney. Few others on the FB page are in melbourne, tammworth and sydney.

    And, if I can sell the battery, there will be one more.

    Fingers crossed this forum doesn't go down though. Its easier to navigate than either of the FB pages and the knowledge in here is pretty good.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,865
    Quote Originally Posted by cjaty View Post
    Prob just as must use as us I spose.I dont know if there's a chumba facebook page,I guess there is.Looks like it's just me and you in australia sammydog.If I win the 5million in the lotto we'll start MC back up again,what do you think?
    MC is trademarked.
    '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
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    MC is trademarked.
    That ok I didn't win lotto anyway

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,865
    I've heard that Ideation still has a MC office in the US and that MS may come back.
    '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

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    I've seen that their website still references MC. Interesting then that they went down the path of liquidating the new range.

    Like the bikes or not, as a business you would think that having produced them ideation would try and give them a shot in the marketplace before selling them off dirt cheap.

    Doesn't make any sense to me other to suggest they aren't really switched on.

  9. #9
    Lars the Swede
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2
    Hi!

    Anybody know anything new about MC?
    Is it still closed/dead? What happened anyway to this magnificent bike-producer?

    // Lars from Sweden (who rides a MC Fury )

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog View Post
    Like the bikes or not, as a business you would think that having produced them ideation would try and give them a shot in the marketplace before selling them off dirt cheap.

    Doesn't make any sense to me other to suggest they aren't really switched on.

    Actually, when faced with an imminent colossal failure, as MC was bound to experience, it makes much more sense to bail than to try and ride it out.

    Every rider out there recognized how poor those bikes were. The design was terrible, they were full of sketchy proprietary bits, and were ugly as a ballsack too. They would have failed, and the losses for MC (marketing, shipping, support, etc) would be higher than if they just liquidated everything.

    I really hope somebody can resuscitate the brand. Roberts original vision was a good one, and the bikes could easily carve a niche in the market if they were built well, and used smarter designs. In face, I'd say with the lowering cost of carbon production, theres never been a better time for MC to rise back up.
    Stuff.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,865
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com View Post
    Actually, when faced with an imminent colossal failure, as MC was bound to experience, it makes much more sense to bail than to try and ride it out.

    Every rider out there recognized how poor those bikes were. The design was terrible, they were full of sketchy proprietary bits, and were ugly as a ballsack too. They would have failed, and the losses for MC (marketing, shipping, support, etc) would be higher than if they just liquidated everything.

    I really hope somebody can resuscitate the brand. Roberts original vision was a good one, and the bikes could easily carve a niche in the market if they were built well, and used smarter designs. In face, I'd say with the lowering cost of carbon production, theres never been a better time for MC to rise back up.
    I agree 100%. But, you forgot it took them twice as long then a car company takes to come out with something new. Unfortunately, someone owns the name Mountain Cycle. Getting them to give it up would be difficult and expensive. Wouldn't it be nice to see a carbon San Andreas, kinda like the original with more travel and modern geo and a more modern look. With maybe something like the Turn Table (the only good part of the last MC debacle) or SC's APP design mixed in. A SA would be easier to make in carbon then Al. Oh man, one can dream right?
    '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 dropmachine.com View Post
    Every rider out there recognized how poor those bikes were. The design was terrible, they were full of sketchy proprietary bits, and were ugly as a ballsack too. They would have failed, and the losses for MC (marketing, shipping, support, etc) would be higher than if they just liquidated everything.
    Poor? Really? They are both awesome bikes to ride (the Zen and the San An) and I have been spending a lot of time on them. Very much comparable to a lot of other bikes I've ridden at recent demo days, and in no way inferior.

    I normally turn my bikes over pretty regularly, these won't be leaving in a hurry.

    The Zen actually attracts quiet a bit of attention on the trails. The San An not so much, but I spend most of my time on the Zen.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Yes, poor. Want a list? The San An was by far the biggest atrocity, so lets go with that.

    Poor design with a ludicrously high TT for NO REASON.

    Heavy.

    Propritary crank setup that is absolutely garbage compared to current offerings.

    The 1940s communist graphics are completely off the mark, giving a cheap look which won't attract in the current market

    High pricing when compared to actually PROVEN companies with similar offerings like Santa Cruz.

    Also don't they run on bushings? Thats just a bad idea too. Not sure about that though.

    Need I continue?
    Stuff.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com View Post
    Yes, poor. Want a list? The San An was by far the biggest atrocity, so lets go with that.

    Poor design with a ludicrously high TT for NO REASON.

    Heavy.

    Propritary crank setup that is absolutely garbage compared to current offerings.

    The 1940s communist graphics are completely off the mark, giving a cheap look which won't attract in the current market

    High pricing when compared to actually PROVEN companies with similar offerings like Santa Cruz.

    Also don't they run on bushings? Thats just a bad idea too. Not sure about that though.

    Need I continue?
    I'm not going to bother getting into a forum argument with someone who hasn't owned one, let alone spend any meaningful time on any of the bikes.

    Cranks though, yeah I prefer my XTR cranks and the BCD on the Turns is a royal pain in the arse when getting smaller rings (the 42/30 offering was wrong), but other than that I have had no issues while I ran the Turn cranks.

    Weight, if it weren't for the stupidly heavy wheels and fork I run (and intend to ditch), the weight would actually be respectable. Not in the league of a carbon frame set, but I wouldn't expect it to be.

    Price, can't vouch for bike prices in the US compared to other builders, but over here everything is ridiculously expensive compared to other markets and the MC prices were not to bad compared to Santa Cruz and a lot cheaper than Intense and companies like that. If it weren't for warranty issues everyone over here would be buying frames out of the US.

    Bushes, I can see why that would put people off, I've had plenty of bikes in the past with bushes, never bothered me and I have had some horrible (the minority) suspension set ups with bearings. At this point on the frames the bushes are fine.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dropmachine.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by sammydog View Post
    I'm not going to bother getting into a forum argument with someone who hasn't owned one, let alone spend any meaningful time on any of the bikes.
    I haven't been hit in the face with an axe either, but I'm pretty goddamned confident saying that would suck too.

    I have enough experience in the industry to spot turd bikes, and that was definitely one. No way it would have been successful, other than to the few that were a) MC loyalists (which I a bit of) and b) people who oddly found it aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise, too many MUCH better options out there from reputable builders to choose the San An.

    As for bushings, well other than Turner I haven't seen a single company do it right yet. And even Turner its arguable that bearings would make the bike even better. But, thats for the turner forum.

    As it is, the whole demise of MC is a very sad thing, especially since it was so avoidable. Really is a shame.
    Stuff.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,865
    Quote Originally Posted by dropmachine.com View Post
    Otherwise, too many MUCH better options out there from reputable builders to choose the San An.

    As it is, the whole demise of MC is a very sad thing, especially since it was so avoidable. Really is a shame.
    More true words have never been spoken!!
    '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

Posting Permissions

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