worst designed bike ever?

[SEANSTEPHENS]

Re: Re:

Couldn't you have picked another example instead of a Breezer!
I believe Joe had a bad back when he came up with that - for which it's probably quite appropriate. Possibly.

Well somebody had to make an excuse to defend this monstrosity lol

I agree with all the nominations so far (well apart from the fool who nominated the zaskar )

 

[al]

Re:

I'm keeping my head down.

ps does anyone have a 1'' ahead Allsop softride stem please?


al.

 

[brocklanders023]

Re:

Agree with the poster that said URT was/is not pointless. I used to think it was and missed their golden period as I was drinking beer and chasing girls rather than riding bikes but having read an article in a 1998 MBUK the whole point of them was to be a full suss that didn't scare off those who were used to rigid or hard tails. They were meant as a halfway house so did their job.

 

[Rampage]

No, the Activator was just a cynical marketing ploy - trying to 'give full suspension to the masses'

21.1mm stem inside a 1 1/8 steerer, ineffective 'suspension' front and rear, gash gear shifting and heavy monkey metal parts that broke or bent after a few rides.

Completely agree with the first sentence.

Mine had a 21.1mm stem in a 1" steerer with a BMX size headset.

My later model activator 2 weighed 40lb before I got started on it.

 

[longun]

Are we talking aesthetic design or effective design? Or both?....... The plot thickens

 

[syncrosfan]

Re:

The answer is simple: this home made POS! Never seen anything uglier!

 

[zetecmk2]

wow!!!

 

[Stiff_Orange]

Re: Re:

The answer is simple: this home made POS! Never seen anything uglier!

Thanks for posting that, it's reminded me that I need somebody to check out my drainpipes.

 

[Fudd]

Re: Re:

Agree with the poster that said URT was/is not pointless. I used to think it was and missed their golden period as I was drinking beer and chasing girls rather than riding bikes but having read an article in a 1998 MBUK the whole point of them was to be a full suss that didn't scare off those who were used to rigid or hard tails. They were meant as a halfway house so did their job.

Back in 1998 there were still a large number of riders who thought that rear suspension would be too energy sapping for XC duties and URT was hailed as the best of both worlds, like a gateway drug for the sceptics into the new world of XC FS.

I was one of those people and in 99 sold my Cinder Cone to pay for an Orange X1. I quickly realised that the increased traction and comfort on the flat or climbing from FS was the future, but when going downhill and out of the saddle, when you really wanted the suspension, it disappeared due to the design and it locking out. It also didn't help that the X1 was so heavy that it had its own gravitational field so I sold it within a year and bought a Marin, a design that's still relevant today and works both going uphill and downhill.

 

[dyna-ti]

Thing is though, what did they have to base their designs on ?.
Areas like downhill and full suspension were very new so they effectively had to play trial and error till they found out what worked and what didn't :?