Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:10 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:05 am 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 3809
I like it. Wonder if it can be modified to 8" rear travel too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:49 pm 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
yeah thats what it is
the replica bso rear end
thats a dead ringer
maybe the BSO crew are finally onto something? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:52 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
I hate hydroformed tubing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:56 pm 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
Tazio wrote:
I hate hydroformed tubing.

why dont you like it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:03 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
cyfa2809 wrote:
Tazio wrote:
I hate hydroformed tubing.

why dont you like it?


Dunno, just doesn't look right to me. I like straight lines on frame design.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:09 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 502
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Looks very BSO to me, just something about it....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:40 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Bristol, UK
The blog on the Mountain Cycles site gets the message across pretty well I felt: http://www.mountaincycle.com/blog88

Quote:
Of course, since the bikes went ‘live’ the opinions have been coming thick and fast… as is to be expected in Internet Land. First observations are that the San Andreas 2.0 is polarising people into love/hate. There is a list of growing ‘the more I look, the more I like’ but either way, I could not be more chuffed; that I think bothers some out there, as I think I am meant to be more apologetic. If you want a design that appeals to everyone, go buy a something beginning with ‘G’. No offence, but their bikes appeal to everyone, they are in every way the 50th percentile – that’s treading what I call the safe line. Things people remember, stand out. They might not like them at first but after a while they come around. The original San Andreas was like that, actually, most Mountain Cycle’s were like that. At the time you either loved or hated them. I loved the San An, not so much the Moho and the like. 20 years on though, people who hated the SA love them. Says something right there and I’m happy we’ve got MC back where it belongs – on the edge.

Now I’m not comparing the new to the old. Never intended to, never would, but in many ways the parallels are interesting and the comments coming forth mirror those that the first SA received at the time. What I do find most interesting are the amount of people saying ‘but it looks nothing like a San Andreas’. Well duh! I answered this recently with this comparison: ‘Does a 1964 Ford Mustang look anything like a 2010 Ford Mustang?”, How about a new vs. old Chevy Camaro? Well no, they don’t. I ccan imagine the reaction if Ford or Chevy just rehashed the old designs, so sure, the lines are similar, actually more ‘reminiscent’, but that’s the end of it. It’s more about the overall feeling and a clear, modern interpretation.

Somehow though, in bike land, new should look like old and if it can’t, it should, it seems, look like everything else out there – swoopy TT, saggy DT and something in the rear. Unchallenging at best.

I’ve never done unchallenging and I am not about to start.

Funnily enough, the new San An does actually have a pretty clear lineage, you just need to look at the two side by side. I know I did, and I have been around the San An since 1993. Some out there have already picked up on this, at least those who care to not jump to a conclusion in what I like to call ‘an Internet Second’, a measure of time about half of a ‘New York Minute’.

Perhaps the greatest unknown for most, and in my eyes the greatest mistake made by MC, was that back when MC conceived the Fury, it actually was as a replacement for the San An, after it was realised that as an adaptable chassis, the monocoque was a disaster. It was a mistake as they should have phased out the San An (rather than make the DNA) and called the Fury, San Andreas. Line the SA1, the Fury and the SA2.0 up in a line, and you’ll see a direct lineage. The Fury was, and now the SA2.0 is, a solid solution to creating a design and production efficiency the original San Andreas lacked, while trying to be true to the old girl. So, no new San Andreas was ever going to replace the original, it was and remains, infeasible at so many different levels, hence will always be an ‘original’.

I guess that means if you have one that’s intact, polish it and hang it on a wall, because it’s a true collector’s item.

There is no apology to those that somehow, and unrealistically, are disappointed. The San Andreas 2.0 is in every way as much a departure from the norm as the original, just in a design, production and market environment that has moved on over the past 20 years. True change uproots people’s ideas of what is and what should be. I also sit comfortable in the fact that no matter what we would have done, the minute we stuck ‘San Andreas’ on it, a segment was going to get their nose out of joint. It might mean we’ll loose some die hards but at the same time, we’ll gain a lot of new blood and that’s good for a brand. Languishing in the past is never a good thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:03 pm 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
i find that contradicts itself slightly
i dont think it should be called a san an if it just remincises of it
i mean some of the features are there yes, but this isnt even on the same page in my eyes. its something completely different.
yes it will be remembered because its different, but not the right typr of different?
we all know they need to keep new customers, but often the word of mouth of the 'die hards' does a lot more for that.
not that they should try and please evryone, i just think this is too hard an attempt at trying to be different yet failing beacause its different for the wrong reason
bso looks - not true to its name

orange have kept alot of their designs true, and have a huge fanbase.
proven to work. im not saying this wont work, it just has nothing to do with the 'old' MC or san an. maybe as were retrobike were stuck in the old, but to go from the old fram, twenty years and give us such a different form of bike
wrong
its not even growing on me which i thought it would, im actually starting to hate it more


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:14 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 5611
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
I asked them about one last year, they were meant to be out late last year, took there time as Im sure it's from Asia as with there other new models.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:00 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Bristol, UK
Imagine the sense of irony at Mountain Cycles, accused in the early 90's of being too futuristic, now getting negativity for not reminiscing enough twenty years on! :)

Bottom line for me is that they are a business, and to move forward they need profitable products that offer something people want to exchange for their hard-earned. Living in the past won't do that in the niche they exist in - they can reference it all they like, but a twenty year old frame design won't sell like a newer one will.

You could argue that if all the bikes we love were that good they'd still be in production.

But it is ugly. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group