Forum menu
Stunning.
Oooh yeah.
Na looks like a hit and run Storm Trooper
I'm sure Alex bloody Curran already has one on order.....
๐ฏ
Looks vicious!
Both mingers
Nasty cheap looking junk. Poxy low wall tyres, strange and tacky bonnet, dark windows. Pure tack
Wonder if its any good off-road with that clearance....
Can someone please post a pic of Stephen Ireland's one!!
The first 2 - can you imaging spending that much money to make something look that horrible ?
Warton - the Classic is indeed a thing of beauty.
What's the difference between those cars, and many of the bikes owned by STWers?
Apart from a few quid, bugger all really. Let's be honest...
What's the difference between those cars, and many of the bikes owned by STWers?
Not sure what you're trying to say there elfin... How many people buy a top end full susser then put slicks on it and ride it around town?
how can anyone have that bad taste, he must be doing it for a laugh!
Pig ****ing ugly. Looks like its had a load of Halfords body kit slapped on it.
Well, how many people buy a top-end full-susser, bling it up, but don't ride it anywhere near it's actual potential?
Most people what buy them, probbly.
Not a problem, enjoy yourself and that, but allow others to make their own choices and do the same, innit?
Many people I know think I'm daft to spend what I have on bicycles. And I'm nowhere near some folk on here in terms of over indulgence!
And Range Rovers aren't marketed at farmers and forestry workers, they're marketed at people who want the 'look'. Let's have it right. Like all the other Faux by Fours. Lifestyle items in the same way most mounting bikes are. ๐
Not sure what you're trying to say there elfin...
That people are quick to mock others for the choices they make, but don't recognise that they are doing exactly the same thing themselves...
This thread makes baby Jesus cry
All those cars are shit
Maybe those pics are photochopped, but the Range Rover test ground isn't.
Range Rovers are ace.
All [i]but two of[/i] those cars are shit
FTFY ๐
^ wot she said
The landrover test track isn't photoshopped, but it has been exceptionally well designed to show off the abilities whilst hiding the shortcomings of the modern electronics laden motors that they produce.
Also, why would those pics be photoshopped? Not exactly challenging terrain in them, I'd happily drive a mini metro over the same...
EDIT; oh I see, rotated.
Drug dealer chic.
The only people with enough money and such a lack of taste.
It's a good few years since I drove it, so I couldn't possible comment on the modern electronics. It impressed the pants off me.
People on here cream over stuff like this:
Garish colours, logos plastered all over, level of equipment way beyond the ability of the rider, etc etc etc.
I'd really like to know what the difference is between bikes like these, and cars like some of the above. ๐
They'll do what they're designed to do?
Elfin in attempt at controversy...
But no ones biting...
But no ones biting...
Except that you just did. Without even being consciously aware of it. ๐
They'll do what they're designed to do?
So will those cars.
So will this:
Just pointing out that others will look at the likes of us lot and judge us because of the choices we've made with our bikes, clothing, accessories etc.
Which makes us just as bad, really, dun't it?
'tis a good point Elf. Personally I don't particularly like the garish cars or the garish bikes, though. ๐
Edit; Although, to split hairs, the cars are fundementally compromised in their design, whilst the bikes represent a very singleminded pinnacle of design, albeit in garish colours...
The difference is, as someone pointed out above, is you wouldn't go to the shops on one of the bikes above. Yes, the marketing is aimed at school run mothers for the cars, but for the bikes it's aimed at people who are serious about their sport, especially the TT bike. I don't think ability of the rider has anything to do with it to be honest, if they're riding a downhill bike on a downhill course, or using a TT bike to do a TT then they're using the bike for what it was intended for.
If I saw someone riding that trek, or even worse the specialized to the shops I'd think 'what a plonker'
Bet the first two RRs won't do what they were designed to do any longer - too little clearance!
If I saw someone riding that trek, or even worse the specialized to the shops I'd think 'what a plonker'
Why would you think that?
Surely they would be free to make their own choices, as you are to make yours?
Or do others have to fit in with your narrow field of vision, in order to gain acceptance and not be judged negatively?
I love the hypocrisy on here. It's delicious. ๐
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cross-porn ]We are no different...[/url]
Or, who did they nick that from? ๐If I saw someone riding that trek, or even worse the specialized to the shops I'd think 'what a plonker'
Trust me elfin, that little red car wouldn't get around the RR test track let alone proper off roading, neither would the bling-bling without being changed back to something closer to original design spec. Hence the DH bike with slicks, nothing to do with skills, everything to do with capability of the machine.
If I saw someone riding that trek, or even worse the specialized to the shops I'd think 'what a plonker'
Why would you think that?
Surely they would be free to make their own choices, as you are to make yours?
I'd think what a plonker too, because I think someone who uses the wrong tool for the job for the sake of fashion/making a statement/ whatever is a bit of a wally.
But, to (miss)quote someone clever;
I may not agree with your choice of rides, but I defend absolutely your right to make such poor choices.
And I can still think that you're a plonked for it, its a free country!





.jpg)







