Aushiker wrote:A question to the Mango Sports Red Edition owners in particular, did any of you consider a Quest or Quest Carbon? If yes, is there any particular reasons you went Mango instead?
I am curious as the Quests seem more popular at BROL and by all reports are faster.
I assume that there is not a Quest equivalent to the Mango Tour so that explains that choice.
Andrew
I looked at a quest (and every other make of velo) before choosing the mango. Comparing the mango to the quest, I looked at the following factors:
1. Speed - Of course going faster is one of the things we buy a velo for, but speed is very much contextual. The quest is more aerodynamic thus about 10% faster in terms of straight line speed. Lets park this and get back to it at the end.
2. Price - The price of the base mango and quest are virtually identical. The mango RE is more expensive than the base model mango and quest as it has ultegra / DA drivetrain, CF seat & dash etc. If you optioned up a quest to a similar spec as the RE the price would be very similar. I actually nearly went with the mango sport with most of the RE options to save some money, but went all in, in the end.
3. Weight - The mango RE weighs 29.5 v 34.5kgs for the FG quest. The CF quest saves about 4kgs but I never seriously considered CF quest since I had already exceeded my budget and CF was another €1200 IIRC. You can get a CF Mango too so the mango is still 5kgs lighter, like for like.
4. Manouverability - The bikepaths on my commute have some tight corners which are just manageable in the mango but would require 3 point turns in the quest. These are a real pain if you need to unclip and backpedal up slight hills. The quest has a turning circle of 11.5m v 8.5m on mango.
5. Luggage - Mango Sport / RE has 70 L. Quest has 65L but is not as useable due to the 26inch rear wheel. Its very long and narrow. Mango RE is too but much better than quest. Mango Tour has 130 L and critically it is so much more useable. I don't tour but I do often commute with full change of clothes (including shoes) as well as laptop, spares etc. I'm sure you could get this into a quest too but you may need very long arms to retrieve it from the tail.
6. Size - The mango fits through a standard doorway (just), the quest does not. This was key for me since I was contracting at the time and moving buildings every 6 months. If I ever ended up without secure storage I can always get the mango into the Brisbane Cycle2City facility. The quest would not fit in through the doorway. Yes - I did measure this
The quest is also 30 or 35cm longer than a mango, making it more difficult to store and transport inside a vehicle at times.
7. Stability - Due to the wider wheel track and negative camber on the front of the mango, it is somewhat more stable / faster through corners. David Hembrow managed to roll a quest after being used to a mango due to its superior cornering and stability. I had a "moment" in the mango early on, where I was turning right across 3 lanes of oncoming traffic and a merging slip lane, at 40 km/hr. With my focus on oncoming traffic I didn't notice the sharpness of the spoon (V) drain in the road. When the inside wheel hit it, I found myself with a major wheel lift. Thankfully, the negative camber seemed to make it rise up without going over the centre of balance, thus enabling me to slowly and calmly (and quite naturally) steer out, put the wheel back down and continue on. That incident could have been a whole lot different in a quest. I read of a number of quest rollovers at the time, although perhaps this has been mitigated somewhat with the improved rear suspension recently released. Again, both mango and quest have better suspension now, so mango is still ahead stability / cornering wise.
8. Gearing options - The mid drive of the mango does enable more gearing options. I was a little uncertain about the gearing I would need for my hills. The ability to change the mid drive ratios was insurance for me.
9. Speed - So getting back to speed, I am 99.9% sure the mango would be faster for me on my daily commute, which is 90% of my riding. The lower weight, greater cornering speed and increased manouverability makes it faster for stop, start, tight corners commuting. On most of my downhills I actually coast and also need to brake a little to keep the mango at a safe speed. >70km/hr on narrow bike paths or even streets with a 50 or 60km/hr speed limit isn't particularly smart, so the higher top end speed of the quest isn't much use there.
So for me, the mango is actually faster. If you are going to be riding mostly flat open roads, then the quest is going to be faster. In your case for touring, a mango tour loaded up internally would be much more aero than a quest with a trailer.
Now don't get me wrong, the quest is the market leader for a reason, not just its time in the market. It is still very competitive speed wise to the new comers (Evo K and Milan SL) but is much more practical than those too. The mango originally came from the same factory as the quest and was meant to be an even more practical / urban version of the quest. They are both very well made and much refinement has gone into both. In the flat european countries with better cycle paths, the quest is often the best choice. Its all just horses for courses, and the mango is the best horse for my course