# Interesting new look for the Mountain Cycle Shockwave



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

I never much liked the look of the old MC DH bike (not sure about this one either) but they certainly did go in a different direction as far as "looks" go. The "hunchback" design kind of reminds me of the old KHS DH bike. It would probably look pretty mean built up.


----------



## Luigiugueto (Oct 16, 2007)

Looks seriously burly, wonder how the suspensions works with that yellow link in there!! id love to see it built up!


----------



## Guy.Ford (Oct 28, 2009)

Opinion just based off my first look, it looks hideous, bulky and busy. Also that main pivot looks way to small for a dedicated DH bike. Im not a fan.

Oh well thats my take, I wish MC luck.


----------



## pfox90 (Aug 8, 2010)

I too hate how bulky some frames look. Just because they look like a tank, doesn't mean they are.


----------



## kenbentit (Jan 2, 2003)

"Interesting" is a good description I guess.


----------



## fixbikeguy (Aug 28, 2008)

The swingarm looks like an afterthought.


----------



## dytrdr5 (Mar 6, 2006)

I also agree that the bike is ugly as sin and as far as the swing arm its the same as all of their new bikes. Can't blame them for trying to streamline their parts, but at the same time it has its pros and cons.


----------



## Iggz (Nov 22, 2006)

fixbikeguy said:


> The swingarm looks like an afterthought.


The frame in general looks like an afterthought.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Iggz said:


> The frame in general looks like an afterthought.


I agree, but I still want to see one built up. Just curious.


----------



## Archi-Magus (Feb 22, 2010)

Looks pretty good IMO.


----------



## bunnyhopbikes (Sep 2, 2009)

Its funny that it says Marzocchi on the swingarm, and there is a double barrel mounted to the frame. Aesthetically, I dont care for it, and it looks like something from the turn of the century. I would really like to see the "turntable" feature demonstrated.


----------



## doesyourchainhanglow (Sep 27, 2010)

built up, up on the roof.


----------



## doesyourchainhanglow (Sep 27, 2010)

Mountain Cycle launch booth #1 from Design Ronin on Vimeo.

vid of all the 2012s. they look freakin sweet


----------



## Orange-Goblin (Jan 27, 2008)

One of the most hideous bikes i've ever seen. Hands down. 

No style consistency through their models either, the swingarm looks to be the same part across the board, but that doesn't mean thats a good thing. Sorry MC, i cannot see your vision here. Utterly bizarre.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

That is one UGLY MOTHERFU*CK*ER


----------



## CombatMutt (Jan 3, 2011)

Oh. That's so unfortunate.


----------



## doesyourchainhanglow (Sep 27, 2010)

i think it looks ver' nice!


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

i can't say i'm surprised. MC makes perhaps the ugliest bikes on the market. good for them, i guess, they still seem to have a loyal following. the rumble is the only frame they couldn't uglify. even their name is terrible. they could've just named their company "bike". that's about how much thought they put into it.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Wow guys, don't hold any punches, tell me what you REALLY think! I don't think I've ever heard so much anger directed at a DH frame. Funny stuff. :thumbsup:


----------



## fixbikeguy (Aug 28, 2008)

I'm really wondering who does their design and market analysis. Do they actually think that this bike will sell? Yes, some people will like it, but it doesn't seem to be very popular so far.


----------



## dhrace507 (Jan 23, 2007)

One of the best things MC ever did was make the MOHO. And that was a hardtail that relied on flexing aluminum. Somehow, their bikes didn't get any better in the last fifteen years. 

Truth be told, I didn't think the original 'Shockwave' looked that bad. Now with this newest version I guess Mountain Cycle didn't want Karpiel and KHS to be lonely in the fugly bike market.

From Mountain Cycle's website:

"We at Mountain Cycle have always worked on gradual refinement and only when there was something worth refining. While our 2011 line is new from the ground up..."

Says it all right there.


----------



## ARider (Feb 28, 2005)

saturnine said:


> i can't say i'm surprised. MC makes perhaps the ugliest bikes on the market. good for them, i guess, they still seem to have a loyal following. the rumble is the only frame they couldn't uglify. even their name is terrible. they could've just named their company "bike". that's about how much thought they put into it.


_Actually_, the company was started by a long time Kawasaki moto test rider. And MC were one of, if not the first, companies to incorporate dirt bike technology like hydraulic disk brakes, inverted forks, subframe/mainframe construction, etc. into mountain bikes.

I think Mountain Cycle was very fitting name for a bike company born from motorcycles.

It is sad to see the direction it went once Kinesis bought them and they moved from SLO to Oregon. There used to be some real soul in each and every one of those frames. Richard Lancaster was winning Semi-Pro DH Nationals on the weekend, then we would be hammering out San Andreas frames and swing arms all week long. Welding up prototype Shockwave frames then testing them down some of SLO's finest DH trails the next day. Good times.

That ugly creation in the first post is not a Mountain Cycle. It is crap.


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

i think the all red san andreas looks all right but the other are just terrible.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Well that's the good thing about having opinions, they are just that, opinions, and everyone has one. Only time will tell how well this design does, I actually kind of like it. I'm curious to see that thing built up with top notch components.

I find many bikes out there now days ugly, that are very popular. I think the majority of Specialized bikes are hidous but they sell a ton of them. I also find Norco, and Ellsworth to be among the ugliest bikes out there, but they seem to be doing fine as well.

Any way like I said, time will tell.


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

Looks like a flexy afterthought.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

It's just a prototype rushed to Sea Otter. That's why some things like the Marzzochi label doesn't make sense. 
The Turntable link, will in part, let a person tune the BB height. The "Rolling Chassis" will include Cane Creek Angle sets. That way a person can change BB height but maintain the proper head angle. 
Some of these paint jobs are supposed to be special edition 20th anniversary stuff. I've heard the regular production paint will be more subdued. 
As far as pivots go, only time on the trails will tell, but the designer Gerard Thomas says they are much stronger than they look. He apparently has designed F1 suspension for a living, so knows his stuff well. Also the load is distributed through the "Turntable" . 
I agree though, the pivots look out of proportion, regardless of how they perform. 
When it comes to paint jobs, they sure didn't listen to us loyal customers. We wanted an option for instance, for a black anodized finish on the new San Andreas. 
I tried to tell them, that the new Zen II in black and white, was going to make people think of a beach police bike.
They also decided for some strange reason to eliminate quick release seat post collars. That makes sense on the carbon XC race bike, but not on the Shockwave or San Ans.


----------



## Moosey (May 18, 2010)

sadly, i kind of like the look.

Does it look heavy? most definately...

Will i buy one? Hell no

Do i think its kinda cool looking in a wierd interesting way? Yes.

Colors are wierd, but im want to see one fully built before i judge anymore. It may be ugly to some people, but it may ride like a dream. you never know...


----------



## tkbiker (Aug 5, 2006)

Thor's bike. lol


----------



## Monkeybike (Feb 25, 2008)

the zen II xc doesn't look that bad ..... and it has a dh swing arm on it.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

A few more pixs of the other bikes.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

zen II is ok, san andreas is fugly. same swingarm on every bike must cut down on costs quite a bit.


----------



## 1soulrider (Jan 21, 2004)

Personally I find all of those bikes unappealing. With so many really good bikes available right now MC will have a hard time getting much market share imo.
Still, to each their own.


----------



## Kuze (Jul 5, 2011)

Anyone else find the Shockwave2's geom weird? 

Wheelbase 42.2" in a size medium and bb 13.3" with 8" of travel?! How's that supposed to work?!


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

ultra short tt? steep ha?


----------



## CombatMutt (Jan 3, 2011)

The Shockwave looks very bulky. The Zen looks alright, but it looks a bit "busy". The San Andreas is utterly terrible; looks like a concept from a motorcycle or car company that's never meant to actually be sold to anyone.
Look, Rep, I don't know if you helped design these things, or why you're so emotionally invested, but clearly you like them, while most everyone else does not. That's not a terribly bad thing, at least you'll have a one of a kind bike on the mountain.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Specialized guy.


----------



## HHMTB (Aug 13, 2006)

I looked around. No other DH FR bike with this amount of travel has this short a wheelbase or low a bb. I _was_ interested in this bike but not any more. If it doesn't throw me over the bars at speed, it'll high center on everything. Who approved this geometry?


----------



## Twisted1 (Aug 24, 2010)

I think the shock wave frame is sick! The San andres is kinda funky though. They say its a am rig but the stand over height dosnt look right. Anyway I would rock the shock wave all day!


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

I am not a fan.............next !!!!


----------

