Pro-flex 656. Good meaning bad, or bad meaning good?

[shovelon]

Proflex, never heard of them.

 

[cce]

i've got a hankering for one now.... you git.

 

[utahdog2003]

it was bottom of the range, still pretty decently equipped overall though

Bottom of the Range?...I don't know if I'd go that far...how about "Sport Class"

 

[cce]

it was bottom of the range, still pretty decently equipped overall though

Bottom of the Range?...I don't know if I'd go that far...how about "Sport Class"

it was bottom of the proflex range however you want to spin it

 

[utahdog2003]

Did one run out of the woods and bite you on the leg or something?

There are people on the board spending big money to dust off cheap Konas and Marins and all kinds of junk. Why not a 656? Seems like there were 2-3 other bikes in the range that sold for less.

 

[Lysander]

Bottom of t'range prolflex weren't exactly cheap, cost or specwise- 555 in 1994 was £900- and that was back when ye could buy a 3-bed semi for £75!!

 

[clockworkgazz]

yeah lay off the 656 you bunch of philistines

Proflex's rock, ride one, then you can start to get why they were so much a bike ahead of it's time.

 

[cce]

i'm not slating it for being lower end, merely stating that it is


hell, i have crossmax on a lava dome so i'm a fine one to talk...

 

[clockworkgazz]

only kidding cce

I think I need to get out more- seems a bit bonkers to love proflex's so much?

This site does somthing to you. :roll:

 

[jimihendrix]

That 656 is ok but i prefer the earlier ones with the straight seat tube, i had a grey 852 in the early 90's and loved it, was bought as a DX equiped red 752 but Offroad replaced it under waranty with the 852 frame after the bottom bracket slackened off and damaged the threads in the frame.

Still fancy another 7,8 or 952.