Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
I didnt seriously.

The Darwin looked ok. How did this :



turn into the Rush lump :confused:

The rear end on the Rush looks like a bolted on wheel clamp.

I can also see a bit of a Santa Cruz blur copy in the Darwin too. Thats why is looked ok.
But good old Cannodale reverted back to a yuk GF design.
 

·
Hybrid Leftys aren't real
Joined
·
16,470 Posts
KleinAttitude said:
I didnt seriously.

The Darwin looked ok. How did this :



turn into the Rush lump :confused:

The rear end on the Rush looks like a bolted on wheel clamp.

I can also see a bit of a Santa Cruz blur copy in the Darwin too. Thats why is looked ok.
But good old Cannodale reverted back to a yuk GF design.
Same single spy pic that was out 2 years ago, I've never seen a different one. I'm the last person to say this sort of thing, but, since I've born witness to your visits in the past, AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH........TROLL ATTACK=:)
 

·
taTegOi
Joined
·
58 Posts
It´s a pity, that the Rush doesn´t look like the Darwin. So I am not able to buy a CD bike with more travel than the Scalpel. the last nice looking CD Fully.
After a short ride with the Rush i can say that it works well, I like to ride it, but I will never come to terms with its optic! For me it looks like an old and non innovativ bike.
Its my opinion and tastes are different as everybody know!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
ribisl said:
It´s a pity, that the Rush doesn´t look like the Darwin. So I am not able to buy a CD bike with more travel than the Scalpel. the last nice looking CD Fully.
After a short ride with the Rush i can say that it works well, I like to ride it, but I will never come to terms with its optic! For me it looks like an old and non innovativ bike.
Its my opinion and tastes are different as everybody know!
I think ultimately your right on opinions and tastes!
But, um, aesthetics take a 3rd seat IMO to how it rides....hmm 'I can say it works well and I like to ride it' should just about cover it ;)
Cheers
CDT
 

·
Hup, Hup
Joined
·
536 Posts
CdaleTony said:
I think ultimately your right on opinions and tastes!
But, um, aesthetics take a 3rd seat IMO to how it rides....hmm 'I can say it works well and I like to ride it' should just about cover it ;)
Cheers
CDT
Right on with that one. If the bike works and I like the feel, then I'll ride it. Aesthetics are low key.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The rear on the Rush is a lump of metal. Its a bit of a Santa Cruz blur copy but it still looked ok.

The Darwin looked slinkly and an awesome XC machine. I was impressed. But why did they revert to the Rush :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Form follows function

It seems the Darwin was a prototype for the bike that eventually became the Rush. Although the Darwin prototype may have looked better to you aesthetically, it was probably determined by Cannondale that the current Rush design was superior perfromance wise to the Darwin prototype. For a mountain bike, the term "its better to look good than feel good" is just the opposite. The bike better feel good to the rider as well as perform for the rider first, before looking good. Just my opinion. Some Cannondale bikes have a unique look which might not agree with everyone but you cannot deny the performance of their bikes.
 

·
Registered Dietitian
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
KleinAttitude said:
The rear on the Rush is a lump of metal. Its a bit of a Santa Cruz blur copy but it still looked ok.

The Darwin looked slinkly and an awesome XC machine. I was impressed. But why did they revert to the Rush :confused:
You're a f*cktard. The production Rush is much better looking than the Darwin proto.

I still dare you to post a photo proving you actually ride a bike.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top