Multimedia

Author Topic: Ugly Parts  (Read 31640 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline montymitch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
    • View Profile
Re: Ugly Parts
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2015, 09:21:28 AM »


I really really really hate the look of these new 2.4 or above tires. It just looks ridiculous. Why do you need bigger tires for softer landings when you know damn well that the majority of your spot is a foot tall ledge.

Yes. Even the mountainbike industry learned that anything bigger than 2,3" (maybe 2,5" for the worst downhill tracks) is quite useless. And while they now fancy tanwalls and fatbikes, BMX is now jumping on the 2,6" gazzaloddi train and makes it even worse with that fuckin colours.
Who is making 2.6 tires? I need to see pics of the monstrosities.

Offline slvtn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3224
    • View Profile
    • tumblr
Re: Ugly Parts
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2015, 12:58:35 PM »

Who is making 2.6 tires? I need to see pics of the monstrosities.

I guess there's no 2,6 yet, but it was mentioned several times that Subrosas Dirtdigger inflated to about 2,5. Even that 2,4 tires out there look huge.
I couldn\'t tell if she was wet or the pasta was just beyond al-dente.

Offline Bunky

  • Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 5747
    • View Profile
Re: Ugly Parts
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2015, 02:50:35 PM »
I saw a walmart mongoose that had 2.65 knobby tires.

I shit you not.
Quote from: G
this website is essentially an irrelevant back-water of the internet

Offline G

  • G-Sport
  • O.G. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10362
    • View Profile
    • http://www.gsportbmx.co.uk
Re: Ugly Parts
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2015, 11:03:21 AM »


I really really really hate the look of these new 2.4 or above tires. It just looks ridiculous. Why do you need bigger tires for softer landings when you know damn well that the majority of your spot is a foot tall ledge.

Yes. Even the mountainbike industry learned that anything bigger than 2,3" (maybe 2,5" for the worst downhill tracks) is quite useless. And while they now fancy tanwalls and fatbikes, BMX is now jumping on the 2,6" gazzaloddi train and makes it even worse with that fuckin colours.

What the hell are you talking about? MTB tyres are still growing. Fat bikes? 27+, 29+, Boost standard? Any of these things mean anything to you?

:)
G.
G-Sport. Making the worlds finest BMX parts since 1994.

Please DON\'T try to PM me. Please Email me instead... email is g at gsport.co.uk

Offline DAKINS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1547
  • Just ride your damn bike.
    • View Profile
Re: Ugly Parts
« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2015, 09:59:40 AM »



Some ugly parts look good on a bike.

Form following function ≠ ugly.  Both of those are beautiful, and make other stems and forks look heavy and dumb.

I'm biased though, I just put a brand new pair of directors and a brand new elementary V3 on my bike.


Drunk Jays fan

Bikeguide.org - Bike maintenance for BMX'ers

Re: Ugly Parts
« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2015, 09:59:40 AM »

 

-->

Tell them " Sheepdog sent you", for a little something special

Click this image for a little something special