What do you call a collection of more than one bike, perceived by everyone except its owner as gopping?
[img] 
[/img]
I'm going with an "Ugly"... 😉
Mine's the looker on the left by the way, not the horrid monstrosity on the right!
The both form a collective known as a 'fugly'
Yetis are f-ugly big time. The full suspension models are properly vomit-inducingly ugly.
A flinch of fugly bikes
Or better still a turd of shit ugly bikes-can you tell I am bored...
An 'unlucky'.
(And how long is that seatpost on the Pronghorn..?!)
Oh come now mboy, you're being a bit unfair there...
I'm sure a lot of the owners think they're ugly too
Anorak on......
That's Brechfa, isn't it?
A Gop of ugly bikes
sorry good looking bike on the left as we look................not sure of the other though, the frame looks organic and swoopy....that seatpost looks like giraffe gas been grafted on....
Yetis are f-ugly big time. The full suspension models are properly vomit-inducingly ugly.
Where's the Yeti? I see no Yeti...
Oh come now mboy, you're being a bit unfair there...I'm sure a lot of the owners think they're ugly too
Haha, "functional" is a better word than ugly... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyhow! 😉
Anorak on......That's Brechfa, isn't it?
Yup, empty carpark at the end of the black... We did most of the black, one big loop of it twice (by mistake) and finished off doing the red descent. Good ride, my first time there, aside from the steep climbs, I really enjoyed it!
we build pyres for'em round here
[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5339702288_d520888e31_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/rocketdog/5339702288/ ]Maverick owner not impressed[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/rocketdog/ ]rOcKeTdOgUk[/url], on Flickr
Fugly, but far from road ugly. Rugly?
Mummy I'm frightened! 😥
A felch surely?
And how long is that seatpost on the Pronghorn..?!)
He's got long legs, tis true, but even so it needs shortening by 10-15mm as we found out mid ride... This was its shakedown ride before he does Bristol 12 hour solo on Saturday, so still time to rectify it.
rocketdog, you been trying to burn my old bike? 😡
dear lord shortening by only 10 to 15mm............. 🙄
🙂
Jeez the bike on the left is soo retarded, who would ride that?
Well, if you have to ask! 🙄
dear lord shortening by only 10 to 15mm.............
He is quite tall, got a 120mm flipping stem on it too! He would have had a size bigger if they did one, but they dont...
And what's going on with the one on the right, someone bought the wrong size clearly, should anyone that tall be allowed to ride 26" wheels?
He does prefer 29ers... But is also sponsored by Pronghorn, who don't currently make a 29er
Funnily enough I saw the picture on Facebook and had commented on how bad they looked on there! Isn't it an offence to have such ugly bikes as close to each other?
Says Pepper who has had some of the worst bikes in the world! 😉
Still got my Box One Frame up in the workshop rafters! 😉
Is that Shergie's on the right?
Personally I quite like both of them, but then I think I'm in a minority finding Nomads, Blurs and Tallboys hideous, too finiky. Nothing again SC, the V10 Carbon is one of the best looking bikes around and I'd consider a Bullit when my big bike gives up the ghost.
Dear god. Those things are uglier than racism.
Isn't it an offence to have such ugly bikes as close to each other?
Hence the midweek jaunt to somewhere so far flung literally nobody else saw... Think all afternoon we saw maybe 4 or 5 other riders, and that was in the carpark. Nobody else on the trail!
Says Pepper who has had some of the worst bikes in the world!
Yeah, you can talk! My Maverick rides like a dream at least, even if it is ugly to some...
Is that Shergie's on the right?
Yup indeed
Is that Shergie's on the right?Yup indeed
Has he grown another foot? That's some seatpost!
I wanted that frame, but ended up with the non-ISP one. Still fast, but think his looks nicer...
Yup its mine, i was going to do the whole 'new bike' thread but got sidetracked by actually riding, i might still once ive washed it...
Very light and very very fast 🙂
Dear god. Those things are uglier than racism.
Comment just had us both laughing
And yes going to have to trim another 20mm off it in the morning but beyond that its spot on
Right I've finally got my latest Fugly bike, Chumba HX2 today, and I've got most if it put together! I had a quick zip around my yard and it's all good, although It's far harsher than my old Gary Fisher Rig.
I'll put pictures up when I've lined the tyre names with the valves tomorrow!
😉
Right I've finally got my latest Fugly bike, Chumba HX2 today, and I've got most if it put together! I had a quick zip around my yard and it's all good, although It's far harsher than my old Gary Fisher Rig.
Get a fat rear tyre in there you tightwad, you've got acres of clearance now compared to 2.1" tyres fouling the stays on the Rig!
Get a fat rear tyre in there you tightwad, you've got acres of clearance now compared to 2.1" tyres fouling the stays on the Rig!
Wadda ya mean tightwad? I've still got the original 2.2 Bonty that I had to take off due to the fouling of the aforementioned Rig 😉
That can go back on now! Simon reckons that a 2.4 will fit but if you're running deraileurs then they have a good chance of clashing with the front mech! Luckily I'm gonna be running it with an Alfine tho.
Topics like these amaze me, When people are slating Specialised and orange, you get people on here saying,,, ohh its not what they look like its how they ride that matter!!! Then you get a topic such as this one and people all leap in saying oh its fugly / ugly / vote inducing ect ect. make your mind up as to why you are ridding the bike you ride.
Personaly i would not buy an awefull looking bike, to me the look of a bike matters. I would never ever buy a bike that i hated the look of, how ever it rode, Why would anyone want to go out ridding on a bike they did not like the look of.But then why would anyone spend spend 2 - 3K on a bike that didnt ride well.
Each to there own thats what i say.
they may be "different" but they ride better* than the boring "ford focus" stuff that most folks ride.
*based on the fact (according to tazzipedia and 20 years experience of riding mountain bikes 😉 ) that the person who usually owns an odd bike will have gone through a whole host of standard mtb's before finding one the suits [b]their[/b] needs rather than what some bloke in a shop or magazine told them they needed to be on trend
What do you call a collection of more than one bike, perceived by everyone except its owner as gopping?
The contents of psychle's shed?
Mavs rule, it's how they ride that matters and Mavs are the best, it's a bike ffs, it's for riding not hanging in a gallery.
Here's mine, just finished it this morning. Won't be getting rid for a long time, as soon as I sold my last Mav I regtetted it and knew I had to get another.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
needs a duc 32 for the full Mav finish 😀
Personaly i would not buy an awefull looking bike, to me the look of a bike matters. I would never ever buy a bike that i hated the look of, how ever it rode, Why would anyone want to go out ridding on a bike they did not like the look of.But then why would anyone spend spend 2 - 3K on a bike that didnt ride well.
Each to there own thats what i say.
I agree entirely, but again I shall say it... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I would NEVER buy a bike purely based upon looks no matter how nice I thought it looked.
When I first saw a Maverick back in about 2001 my thoughts were along the lines that it looked like it was trying to be different for the sake of being different. If that makes sense? I wouldn't have called it ugly at all, just thought it looked more complicated than it needed to be, But this was also before I even began to understand the reason behind the design and the rear suspension axle path.
Looking into how the suspension works, it makes sense to have the frame designed in such a way as it is, it's actually less complicated than it looks cos essentially the shock is now one main spar of the rear triangle. So it's kind've "form follows function", but in an intricate and highly detailed way.
And then I rode one... To quote Tazzy above...
based on the fact (according to tazzipedia and 20 years experience of riding mountain bikes ) that the person who usually owns an odd bike will have gone through a whole host of standard mtb's before finding one the suits their needs rather than what some bloke in a shop or magazine told them they needed to be on trend
I've ridden LOTS of full sus MTB's, some good, some bad, many very average, but the moment I first swung a leg over a Maverick and pedalled I knew I had to have one! And that was back in 2003 when they were still £2500 for a frame only! It took a few years wait and a chance immaculate 2nd hand ML7 to get my first one back in Feb 2007, but since then nothing else will do... They are a very distinctive ride, and they by no means suit everyones riding style, but for those of us that they do suit they're the cream of the crop!
Nothing wrong with Mavericks, I love my ML7. Now Jeff Jones, he does make an ugly bike!
Mboy my latest fugly bikes all built, although I'll still take the pee out of your URT Maverick 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Though I reckon I'm going to have to take your advice and get the 120mm forks for it 😉
Nothing wrong with Mavericks, I love my ML7. Now Jeff Jones, he does make an ugly bike!
I'm not going there either... No, I don't own a Jones (god I wish I was that loaded!), but I have had a brief go on one... Again, won't be for everyone, but it does ride very nicely for those it appeals to.
Mboy my latest fugly bikes all built, although I'll still take the pee out of your URT Maverick
Wouldn't call that fugly mate, about the best looking bike you've had I reckon! Longer travel forks and some biiiiig rubber will make it look even tastier though! 😉
And you can take the pee out of my Maverick all you want, but I can bore you for AT LEAST twice as long with all the information about how it is NOT a URT design, how the rear axle path moves exactly parallel with the front axle path, how the suspension stiffens less than 7% when standing as opposed to seating (so naff all in reality), and how the suspension only moves because of forces acting on it from the ground (rider induced pedal bob is non existent on a Maverick!)... See! 😉
And you can take the pee out of my Maverick all you want, but I can bore you for AT LEAST twice as long with all the information about how it is NOT a URT design, how the rear axle path moves exactly parallel with the front axle path, how the suspension stiffens less than 7% when standing as opposed to seating (so naff all in reality), and how the suspension only moves because of forces acting on it from the ground (rider induced pedal bob is non existent on a Maverick!)... See!
Yeah but I just love getting you started on it! 😉
It's got uglier!
[img] 
[/img]
Yes, that is a Thomson layback run back to front, so my saddle angle is now correct, and yes those are 762 wide flat bars and a double and bash on an XC bike... 😀
You poor (m)boy
that looks ace, but then most of my bikes also fall into the " uglier than an orange 5 rider" category
That seat post and tube looks like it needs a snake charmer to keep it under control!
That seat post and tube looks like it needs a snake charmer to keep it under control!
Comment of the day... Brilliant!
They don't call me snake hips for nothin'! 😉
A collection of ugly bikes is known as a 'helpdesk'
"a helpdesk of 5's and pronghorns came past"