Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168

    SUPERFLY 100 or RUMBLEFISH II.....

    what's up guys....well i can't seem to make my mind up .....i am going to be picking up a new FS 29er....and i am loving the new GARY FISHER line from TREK.....
    after studying the comparisons from all three ....SUPERFLY 100....HIFI PRO....RUMBLEFISH II
    seems that the RF II has better rear shock but wheels may be a bit heavier....

    what do u guys think.....price is no issue as i am getting cost on the bike of my choice....

    thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    Oh I forgot ....
    Carbon vs aluminum ....
    That's the real dilemma

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    What kind of riding? Racing?
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    The Superfly 100 and Rumblefish are two very different bikes. Th superfly is more XC-racing oriented, where the rumblefish is more agressive/technical trail or even light all-mountain oriented. I rode both bikes at a Trek demo around a month and half ago.

    The rumblefish is very, very plush. The DRCV rear shock does everything it's advertised to do. Keeps everything super plush and planted on the ground, but is still a capable climber. I was able to go over all kinds of stuff I wouldn't have even attempted on my current bike. Going down hills was like floating on air, didn't really feel many of the rocks, roots, etc. in my path

    The superfly, on the other hand, is a lot firmer in it's suspension set up. You feel a lot of the bumps, but it's not bone-jarring. It is pretty light, and makes it known on the uphills. I rode the superfly later in the day, and I was able to climb the same hills I had done on the other bikes faster, and using less energy. On the downhills, how ever, the firmer suspension set up was stiff (granted, I probably didn't have all the suspension settings set up to the optimal settings).

    hope that helps!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    Awesome dude
    Well I ride a SS hard tail 69er now and by far is my best bike I ever owned
    Had a bunch in my years of riding
    I'm more of all mountain rider
    Single track ,technical and some up and downhill
    Just want a really good geared FULL SUSPENSION ride
    I love TREK and absolutely love the 29er feel
    So I was like hmmm Superfly hifi or rumble?

  6. #6
    Monocog Masher
    Reputation: Merost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    161
    I have a HIFI from two years ago. I love the way it rides. I'm looking at the new Superfly 100. My current HIFI has predominately X9 components, the same as the Superfly 100. Surprisingly, the Superfly, which weighed 26lbs (19" frame) doesn't feel a whole lot lighter, if at all, than my HIFI. It retails for 4500 (im sure I can get it for less than 4000), but that is still a lot of bones for bike that isn't a whole lot different than what I'm riding now. Granted, carbon fiber is cool, but don't care so much when it comes to a mt. bike.

    I'm also interested in the Rumblefish, but it's a lot heavier. Don't know if I'm ready to go back to a longer-travel trail bike. I rode one for quite a few years and it destroyed my confidence at even trying to get up steep hills.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    Hmmmm how heavy is the rumblefish II ?
    Last edited by shawnymac; 10-10-2010 at 06:31 AM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,268
    Quoting "pro pricing" as you have is very very uncool.
    Last edited by driver bob; 10-10-2010 at 12:04 PM.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    sorry didnt realize till just now.....fixed..

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,268
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    sorry didnt realize till just now.....fixed..

    All is forgiven

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    kool.....so how heavy is the hifi and rumblefish....

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mlx john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    497
    Hey,

    At work at a Trek store....just weighed a 15.5" Rumblefish I, 29 pounds even w/no pedals.

    I imagine the higher end RF II will weigh a bit less.

    No Hifi on the floor right now, the Hifi is basically an aluminum Superfly, same geometry.

    Weighed a 19.5" Superfly 100, 25.63 pounds w/no pedals.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    hmmmm...i would be picking up a 17.5 is the RF that heavy....i know its a FS but do they weight that much......

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mountaindavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    221
    Yeah, that's what mine weighs.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    ahhhhh i can't make my mind up .....hahahaha i am sure there are worst problems out there...hahahaha

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    What kind of riding are you doing?
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    well i want it for everything single track technical , a little uphill and down hill even some street ...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    HiFi is the do it all bike just not as plush as a RF.
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    everyone says its really plush but the weight is where? the wheel set? cant be xtr stuff....frame is the same as the hifi pro as well

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    133
    I have a Rumblefish 1 and a SF100 (2010 model = to the 2011 SF100 Elite)...I can definitely tell that the RF is substantially plusher than the SF100, yet, the SF100's frame is very stiff...possibly stiffer as a frame...or it may just feel that way due to the more XC tuned suspension.

    As for climbing...I bought the RF to take on a trip to Moab/Durang/Fruita and that bike had no issues climbing or descending really steep and technical terrain. We spent the entire week riding some very technical trails including a portion of the Colorado Trail. We climbed up to about 10,500' from Durango. At 30lbs (with pedals) it is by no means light, but, it sure did not feel heavy on the trail.

    BTW...my SF100 weighs in at 26lbs2oz with pedals/cages/etc....ready to roll.

    -r

  21. #21
    I hate that name.
    Reputation: blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,452
    My 2010 RF weighs about 31 lbs, but I can't tell when I'm riding it. It is one of the best climbing bikes I have ever ridden. FWIW, my bike does not have an especially light build. I have a thread on it here somewhere a few pages back.
    Worked at Trek/Fisher dealer 2008-2013. Only a little biased.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AndrewMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    56
    For me it would depend on how long I have enjoyed the sport. Personally I would get the cheapest bike ( there all nice bikes so you cant go wrong anyways) ,since i'm somewhat new.
    Maybe if I was like 3-5 years in I would actually get a nice bike

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    sounds good....i am just used to my 69er and i know when i go to a FS it is gonna be heavier plus when my body gets on it it wont be no lightweight hahahaha......

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    The RF is heavier because the components are heavier. The frame may be the smae as the HiFi but everything else including the fork is heavier.
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    168
    ya i guess it has to be to absorb the abuse.....just dont know if i really need a downhill bike.....

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •