Are Porsche mountain bikes any good or are they just overpriced

>>1019148
The better question is why do they make bikes?

>>1019148
Any bicycle you see with a car manufacture's name on it is a piece of trash designed to attract purchases on brand recognition alone from people who have more money than they know what to do with.

>>1019179
Most of the time. There are however exceptions such as the OP bike (well, it was decent at the time) however they're likely to be highly overpriced.

>>1019180
I'll admit that occasionally a car manufacturer's name ends up on a passably decent bike when considered in a vacuum, but considered in the context of the price of that bike and compared to similarly priced bikes, they're still universally trash.

File: GMC-Denali-Road-Bike-Review-1.jpg (68KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x600px

>>1019179

File: 1997_volkswagen_jetta_sedan_trek_fq_oem_1_500.jpg (57KB, 500x315px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x315px

>>1019179
this bike came with a car

>>1019196
The bike isn't trash though, it's just overpriced compared to similarly specced bikes. The price is the only negative, not the quality.

File: Porsche-Bike-RX.jpg (37KB, 719x432px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 719x432px

$6.7k for a hardtail. I built a carbon FS for less than half of that. This one has DT swiss fork, magura hydros and a pretty cool looking frame but it has shitty crank bro wheels- didn't those things get discontinued for sucking?

>>1019179
>ferrari colnagos are shit
>those lotus sprint machines are shit

I don't think so friend