Are MTBs losing out to road bikes

stubs

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Uou compare your bike to a Range Rover Evoque? Is it a completely useless sack of sh1t which was designed by a team lead by Victoria Beckham and completely hopeless off road? Does everyone who sees you riding it think you must be a right tw@?

I dont like the Evoque but to call it completely hopeless off road is balls, compared to a Bowler Wild Cat desert racer it might not cut the mustard but compared to anything else that isnt a Land Rover or Range Rover its an offroad God.

rockmonkeysc

When I see a farmer towing a sheep trailer across a field with an evoque I will believe it's useful off road. Until then it's just an off road style car like a BMW X series, Mercedes ML, Nissan Juke or those 1990's Suzukis with the soft top and wide wheels.

Prowlus

Ive actually seen G-wagons in lyndhurst Hampshire, Epping (unloading a few mtbs) and one in Kelvedon Hatch supporting some dirtjumpers . I'm not fan of most Mercedes cars but the g-wagon is a real workhorse that can do a lot more for what its worth and not a chelsea tractor

rockmonkeysc

But there are much better 4x4's available for half the price

njee20

Btw why would my rig be inappropriate for Richmond? There are mountain bike singletrack sections around there perfect for shakedown cruises for newly purchased xc types plus I need to save up for a new cycle rack . I'm a bit worried about hitching a longer and bigger wheeled 29er on a saris bones behind my hatchback

1) stop calling a bike a "rig"
2) there's not really any mountain biking in Richmond Park, you talked about using a Ransom there, now a Camber. It's one thing to go for a gentle spin or whatever, but it's not mountain biking
3) you have a hatchback, put the bike in the car, not outside it

I'm just saying my rig combines both style and functionality as opposed to road rigs which are speed and beauty combined

1) See point 1) above.
2) actually a road bike is all about functionality, just a different design objective to a mountain bike, and frankly as per 2) above, around Richmond Park they're using far more appropriate tools than yourself.

rockmonkeysc

Anyone who calls their bike a rig deserves to be calked a c*nt

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

When I see a farmer towing a sheep trailer across a field with an evoque I will believe it's useful off road.

Or maybe you could just read some of the reviews. Or maybe actually try one. And if you believe it was designed by Victoria Beckham, you'll believe anything.

rockmonkeysc

I have driven one, my sister in law owns one. It's fairly pointless. It even makes the BMW X5 seem like a useful vehicle. Its very nicely built and drives well enough on road.
Range Rover did use Posh Spice as a consultant on the styling and design. I guess thats the market it's aimed at so why not?

ddraver

njee20 wrote:

around Richmond Park they're using far more appropriate tools than yourself.

They re called Cyclocross bikes...

The roadies are likely staring at your bike thinking man this must suck for him on that thing...

The Rookie

Hard to claim VB was a consultant on the styling when the concept car (which the production came stayed true to) was shown before she came on board....she certainly had nothing to do with the design (engineering). What she was used for was consultation on feature content and interior ambience type features.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I have driven one, my sister in law owns one. It's fairly pointless. It even makes the BMW X5 seem like a useful vehicle. Its very nicely built and drives well enough on road.
Range Rover did use Posh Spice as a consultant on the styling and design. I guess thats the market it's aimed at so why not?

Ah, so all the reviews that say it's extremely capable off-road are wrong. Of course, I should have known. And, no, she had absolutely nothing to do with the design other than to lend her name and image for some very ill-judged PR. Unless, that is, you actually believe JLR would hand the design of their make or break car over to a Spice Girl. Seriously?

stubs

When James May drove an Evoque through the mountains and Death Valley on Top Gear it must have been a different vehicle entirely then.

The Rookie

I know that the Evoque only failed to meet one of Land Rover's corporate standards and that was nothing to do with it's offroad ability, it meets he same off road standards as required of all it's other new products (noting that defender can't meet some of the new standards the evoque meets).

Angus Young

The Rookie wrote:

What she was used for was consultation on feature content and interior ambience type features.

Not even that. It's all just PR window dressing. It's no different than when you see a quote from Stephen King on the front of a book telling you this is the future of horror. Rarely will he have read the book. It will be one of the minions at his agent who vets the book and then King gets 60K for allowing his name to be put next to a sentence he never wrote. It's all just marketing. Mind you, given the backlash against Posh's supposed involvement I'll bet the marketing department are secretly wishing they'd picked someone else to hang the campaign on.

Clank

The Rookie wrote:

I know that the Evoque only failed to meet one of Land Rover's corporate standards and that was nothing to do with it's offroad ability, it meets he same off road standards as required of all it's other new products (noting that defender can't meet some of the new standards the evoque meets).

......except the Defender is more capable off-road than the Ewok (and the new RR, for that matter). And I'm not talking about towing Clarissa's horsebox out of a wet field. If they gave me one for the weekend I'd happily demonstrate, they'd just have to be prepared for having to trailer it home. JLR wouldn't take me up on the offer last time, so I'm not holding my breath.

Whilst the Ewok meets the corporate standards, some of their customers (o hai!) have a different use-case. And for that use-case, LR will shortly have nothing in their inventory (the Defender only has a few weeks left, and rightly so).

Don't get me wrong - their new products are astonishing and very capable, especially at generating and using grip ......but they're not capable enough for what I get up to in mine.

batmo

Prowlus wrote:

I'm not fan of most Mercedes cars but the g-wagon is a real workhorse that can do a lot more for what its worth and not a chelsea tractor

RockmonkeySC wrote:

But there are much better 4x4's available for half the price

The G-Wagen has mechanically lockable centre, front and rear differentials, expensive equipment not available as factory options on the other 4x4s mentioned. This could enable you to drive out of a situation where 3 out of 4 wheels have no grip, for e.g.

Clank wrote:

...except the Defender is more capable off-road than the Ewok (and the new RR, for that matter).

I haven't driven an Ewok (sic) so I can't comment, but the Range Rover's limited slip rear diff (where the Defender has no locking axle diffs) gives it the edge IMHO.

rockmonkeysc

So are we agreed then? Roadies are gay and mountain bikes are cool?

Clank

Batmo wrote:

Clank wrote:

...except the Defender is more capable off-road than the Ewok (and the new RR, for that matter).

I haven't driven an Ewok (sic) so I can't comment, but the Range Rover's limited slip rear diff (where the Defender has no locking axle diffs) gives it the edge IMHO.

I wish it was true, but the traction takes out loans that the rest of the vehicle struggles to make the repayments on.....

The challenge still stands. Give me one for a weekend and I'll demonstrate why the Defender is more capable.

In the same way, I can prove why mountain bikes are more capable than road bikes. Road bikes excell at a few things. Mountain bikes are capable of the same things, but they don't excell at them. They excell at other stuff the road bikes aren't capable of....

And we're back on topic!

Angus Young

Clank wrote:

The challenge still stands. Give me one for a weekend and I'll demonstrate why the Defender is more capable.

More capable the Defender may be, but that doesn't mean the Evoque is a "completely useless sack of sh1t... and completely hopeless off road".

And no, mountain bikes are not more capable than road bikes. They're just more capable at certain things.

njee20

I think mountain bikes are more capable than road bikes, but it's a hugely irrelevant comparison frankly.

Sod Evoque/Defender, you're comparing F1 car/Defender.

Clank

Angus Young wrote:

Clank wrote:

The challenge still stands. Give me one for a weekend and I'll demonstrate why the Defender is more capable.

More capable the Defender may be, but that doesn't mean the Evoque is a "completely useless sack of sh1t... and completely hopeless off road".

I never said it was and you've got some f**king neck to suggest I did (seriously: bad form). I just said the Defender was more capable off-road (from a position of vast experience, I hasten to add). From the dictionary definition of 'capable', I see no reason to change my stand. You should look it up -fascinating.

Angus Young wrote:

And no, mountain bikes are not more capable than road bikes. They're just more capable at certain things.

Seriously? I would mock you, but the challenge has gone.

Angus Young

Clank wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

Clank wrote:

The challenge still stands. Give me one for a weekend and I'll demonstrate why the Defender is more capable.

More capable the Defender may be, but that doesn't mean the Evoque is a "completely useless sack of sh1t... and completely hopeless off road".

I never said it was and you've got some f**king neck to suggest I did (seriously: bad form). I just said the Defender was more capable off-road (from a position of vast experience, I hasten to add). From the dictionary definition of 'capable', I see no reason to change my stand. You should look it up -fascinating.

Angus Young wrote:

And no, mountain bikes are not more capable than road bikes. They're just more capable at certain things.

Seriously? I would mock you, but the challenge has gone.

Oh dear... wrong time of the month, perhaps?

Really, if you're going to get all smarmy and stroppy, at least bother to read the thread first. If you had, then you'd have realised that I wasn't suggesting you did. Mind you (while we're here), you did wade in with the rather tired and completely stupid Not As Capable As Defender argument. Of course it's not as capable as a Defender. If you want something as capable as a Defender JLR will sell you a... err... Defender (well, for another few weeks, anyway, but you get the point). Which is why I quoted the origin of this little knock about. Just bringing it full circle. Fascinating, eh?

Oh, and you don't get any superiority points when you selectively quote. Not in big school, anyway. If you're going to go bold to try to seem all clever then at least do it honestly... "They're just more capable at certain things." Guess that would have been too much of a 'challenge', though.

rockmonkeysc

Best thing about the Defender is the farm proof interior. You can even hose it out without killing anything.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Best thing about the Defender is the farm proof interior. You can even hose it out without killing anything.

Nah, the best thing is, like your favourite pair of jeans, they get better the older and more bashed up they get. Nice new clean ones always look a bit 'wrong' to me.