Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177

    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
    177
    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
    177
    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
    177
    Hmmmm how heavy is the rumblefish II ?
    Last edited by shawnymac; 10-10-2010 at 06:31 AM.

  8. #8
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,858
    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
    177
    sorry didnt realize till just now.....fixed..

  10. #10
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,858
    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
    177
    kool.....so how heavy is the hifi and rumblefish....

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mlx john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    746
    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
    177
    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
    177
    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
    177
    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
    177
    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
    160
    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
    1,635
    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
    177
    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
    177
    ya i guess it has to be to absorb the abuse.....just dont know if i really need a downhill bike.....

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    ya i guess it has to be to absorb the abuse.....just dont know if i really need a downhill bike.....
    The HiFi can hold it's own on the tech stuff believe me. I was surprised how good it is. Frame stiffness is very good.
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    really.....how much different or better is SRAM than XTR.....i have always been an XTR guy.....
    i think the SUPERFLY 100 is not for me....so now its down to the RF II or the HIFI PRO......

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    really.....how much different or better is SRAM than XTR.....i have always been an XTR guy.....
    i think the SUPERFLY 100 is not for me....so now its down to the RF II or the HIFI PRO......
    I don't use SRAM. My Pro was all XT but now it's stripped and I am selling the frame and fork so I can get a bigger one. XTR is overkill for most but if you can afford it go for it.
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    well spoke to a bunch of TREK shops around the area and thinking the RF is not for me but the SUPERFLY 100 could be all me....i guess i am more XC than DOWNHILL boy....

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    36
    I rode a SF100 and loved how light it felt. It was also kind of 'stiff' for a FS bike. I only had it around a parking lot and side street, but I could be very happy with one.

    Glenn

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    well spoke to a bunch of TREK shops around the area and thinking the RF is not for me but the SUPERFLY 100 could be all me....i guess i am more XC than DOWNHILL boy....

    I love both of them...BUT....the RF is NOT a downhill bike!

    -r

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    you know what bothers me more than anything....you call around to LBS TREK dealers and no one knows anything about theses bikes....

    they are all telling me the RFII is a all mountain bike....geez i don't know i am so friking confused.....

  33. #33
    Trying not to kill myself
    Reputation: gabe23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    391
    The RFII is classified as 'All Mountain' (or trail) while the HiFi is 'XC', but you mentioned downhill which is a whole different animal. I'd buy the RF if it were my choice. The component set is a little better, and the extra suspension travel can always come in handy. It's a little heavier than the HiFi, but if low weight is your thing go with the Superfly.

    One thing about the Trek dealers is that these bikes may be new to them unless they were a Fisher dealer before (not all were). I'd try to find a place that has carried Fisher for years and they should be more familiar with the product lines.


    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    you know what bothers me more than anything....you call around to LBS TREK dealers and no one knows anything about theses bikes....

    they are all telling me the RFII is a all mountain bike....geez i don't know i am so friking confused.....

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    451
    It sounds like you're getting a bit confused comparing these 3 bikes, and I think you're probably better off comparing the HiFi and the Rumblefish first, before you go delving into the carbon Superfly land.

    The HiFi and Rumblefish both have 110mm rear travel, it's just that the RF utilises the twin-chamber DRCV Fox shock to control that 110mm rear travel.
    The advantage of this shock is that it is plusher and much more linear through the entire range of the stroke, much like a coil shock. So the 110mm of rear travel on a RF feels smoother and more responsive to bumps.
    It is also tuned to have better bottom-out control, so when you hit bigger drops, the RF will stay more composed and is less likely to bottom out the shock.

    Another key difference is the fork.
    On the HiFi you get a 9mm QR 100mm travel fork, and on the RF you get a 120mm travel QR15 Thru-Axle fork. The RF then uses different geometry to accommodate this extra travel in the fork, resulting in a more relaxed riding position that is more upright at the handlebar.

    Both frames use similar features, such as the tapered E2 headtube, ABP rear suspension and pressfit BB shell, and from what I can gather, are very similar tubesets (read; marginal weight difference) with the exception of the swing link on the RF to accept the DRCV shock mount. So don't go thinking that one is a DH frame and the other is an XC frame, they are very similar in weight and strength, the main difference here is the geometry.

    Aside from that, the RF uses the wider Rhythm rims as oppose to the Race Lite rims on the HiFi - so some rotational weight difference there.

    Bearing all that in mind, I think you will find the HiFi a better all day mile-eater bike, that can hold it's own in a 6/12/24 hour enduro, or 100km marathon event. Particularly with the geometry, it will climb well and descend with 29er stability - it is NOT a nervous XC race bike. If you like doing those sort of events but also enjoy just tooling around the trails, this could be your all round trail bike, which will hold it's own on the XC race track.

    The Rumblefish will suit a more aggressive rider who is dropping and jumping more - no it is not a DH bike, but it will be a lot more confident coming down and bashing through technical rock gardens due to the plusher rear shock, stronger wheels and bolt-thru front axle. With the wider handlebar, slacker head tube and taller front end, it won't climb with the same agility as the HiFi but will stay far more composed when you're riding at higher speeds through rough terrain, especially when it's pointed downhill. If you are an XC racer and you want a fun bike, this could be it.
    If you are not a racer, but want an All Mountain bike, this could also be it for you.

    Are you on the bigger side? Do you tend to pop off lips on the trail? Do you find yourself breaking spokes or pinching tubes often?
    Are there specific events you want the bike for?
    Do you regularly have a go at black diamond trails or do you tend to avoid that sort of thing?
    Do you want to ride for up to 4-5 hours at a time?

    I think answering these questions will help you make the decision between these two styles of bikes.

    As for the Superfly question, as others have stated, it is a carbon HiFi.
    If you answer those questions and figure that the HiFi will suit your weight and riding style more, then the Superfly will be more responsive, stiffer and lighter than the HiFi, and a better bike if the budget permits.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Little Willy
    It sounds like you're getting a bit confused comparing these 3 bikes, and I think you're probably better off comparing the HiFi and the Rumblefish first, before you go delving into the carbon Superfly land.

    The HiFi and Rumblefish both have 110mm rear travel, it's just that the RF utilises the twin-chamber DRCV Fox shock to control that 110mm rear travel.
    The advantage of this shock is that it is plusher and much more linear through the entire range of the stroke, much like a coil shock. So the 110mm of rear travel on a RF feels smoother and more responsive to bumps.
    It is also tuned to have better bottom-out control, so when you hit bigger drops, the RF will stay more composed and is less likely to bottom out the shock.

    Another key difference is the fork.
    On the HiFi you get a 9mm QR 100mm travel fork, and on the RF you get a 120mm travel QR15 Thru-Axle fork. The RF then uses different geometry to accommodate this extra travel in the fork, resulting in a more relaxed riding position that is more upright at the handlebar.

    Both frames use similar features, such as the tapered E2 headtube, ABP rear suspension and pressfit BB shell, and from what I can gather, are very similar tubesets (read; marginal weight difference) with the exception of the swing link on the RF to accept the DRCV shock mount. So don't go thinking that one is a DH frame and the other is an XC frame, they are very similar in weight and strength, the main difference here is the geometry.

    Aside from that, the RF uses the wider Rhythm rims as oppose to the Race Lite rims on the HiFi - so some rotational weight difference there.

    Bearing all that in mind, I think you will find the HiFi a better all day mile-eater bike, that can hold it's own in a 6/12/24 hour enduro, or 100km marathon event. Particularly with the geometry, it will climb well and descend with 29er stability - it is NOT a nervous XC race bike. If you like doing those sort of events but also enjoy just tooling around the trails, this could be your all round trail bike, which will hold it's own on the XC race track.

    The Rumblefish will suit a more aggressive rider who is dropping and jumping more - no it is not a DH bike, but it will be a lot more confident coming down and bashing through technical rock gardens due to the plusher rear shock, stronger wheels and bolt-thru front axle. With the wider handlebar, slacker head tube and taller front end, it won't climb with the same agility as the HiFi but will stay far more composed when you're riding at higher speeds through rough terrain, especially when it's pointed downhill. If you are an XC racer and you want a fun bike, this could be it.
    If you are not a racer, but want an All Mountain bike, this could also be it for you.

    Are you on the bigger side? Do you tend to pop off lips on the trail? Do you find yourself breaking spokes or pinching tubes often?
    Are there specific events you want the bike for?
    Do you regularly have a go at black diamond trails or do you tend to avoid that sort of thing?
    Do you want to ride for up to 4-5 hours at a time?

    I think answering these questions will help you make the decision between these two styles of bikes.

    As for the Superfly question, as others have stated, it is a carbon HiFi.
    If you answer those questions and figure that the HiFi will suit your weight and riding style more, then the Superfly will be more responsive, stiffer and lighter than the HiFi, and a better bike if the budget permits.
    +1

    Well stated!

    -r

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    526
    I have a 2010 Hifi Plus as well as an Anthem 29 X3 and feel that the Rumblefish/Hifi/Superfly family works best as an all mountain design. You sit more upright in the riding position versus the Anthem X3 and the Hifi just feels like a big tough bike by comparison.

    The 2010/2011 GF 29 frames are really designed more for all mountain than cross country riding. That's not to say that the Hifi is a bad cross country bike because it's certainly not but it doesn't feel as racy or nimble as an Anthem 29.

    Just get the Rumblefish.

  37. #37
    Trying not to kill myself
    Reputation: gabe23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    391
    I had a similar experience when shopping for my bike. I spent some time on an Epic Comp 29er demo bike, and I strongly considered it instead of my HiFi. It definitely had a more aggressive riding position and could be a bit twitchy at speed. Coming from more of a road background, I liked the layout but the handling gave me some concern since I'm not an advanced rider. I wasn't able to do a very extensive test ride of the GF, but based on the comments here I thought it would be a better fit for my style and the trails around here. Now that I've owned it a while and ridden it in some different conditions, I'm convinced I made the right choice. I have no concern at all about my HiFi being tough enough to ride on any trails around NC, and the extra stability it has compared to a true XC race bike is very welcome as I become a better rider. It's just a good all around mountain bike.


    Quote Originally Posted by mefistofeles
    I have a 2010 Hifi Plus as well as an Anthem 29 X3 and feel that the Rumblefish/Hifi/Superfly family works best as an all mountain design. You sit more upright in the riding position versus the Anthem X3 and the Hifi just feels like a big tough bike by comparison.

    The 2010/2011 GF 29 frames are really designed more for all mountain than cross country riding. That's not to say that the Hifi is a bad cross country bike because it's certainly not but it doesn't feel as racy or nimble as an Anthem 29.

    Just get the Rumblefish.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    WOW......you are the man...hahahaha....
    i have compared all three bikes on the TREK site and really do not know all the mambo jumbo,.....

    i have been riding mountain bike for many years....i have had all kind of FS bikes from cannondales jekyls to treks y33....

    price is no object i am treating myself this time and just want something for a good couple years.....

    i do not do much rock garden stuff...or any black diamond stuff anymore...hahahha
    i am 38 yrs old and can't afford to break anything else on my body hahahaha
    so i take it easy...i am a very good rider and experienced....

    i am 5'10.5 220lbs....i haven't broken anything really i am very anal with my stuff and take care of it very well....
    i have a trek 69er hard tail SS and love it but i want some gears and rear suspension ......when i do ride it is usually for 2-3hrs max.....but once a year i do a 55 mile narathon in NYC and the single speed kicked my butt last year...hahahhaa
    i have a road bike but the streets of nyc will kill it...so i was think .hmmm maybe i should pick up a new bike......

    how hard is the ride on the superfly100 ....i am leaning on the side of the carbon beauty ....is it reliable?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: whackum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    119
    hey shawnymac. i own both a rumblefish 2 and superfly 100, both 2010 models. i've enjoyed both and ridden both a LOT over the last year. based on your self described riding preferences i believe the rumblefish would give you the most bang for your buck. handles and climbs very well. i don't really feel the extra weight when comparing to the superfly. and definitely a plusher ride but without any slow handling feeling. don't get me wrong, the superfly is a good choice too, but for a combination all mountain, xc guy i'd say "rumble young man, rumble."

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    hey wackum....we need to talk.....
    hahahaha
    thanks

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,593
    For me and the kind of riding I do the RumbleFish would be the choice.

    To be honest, it sounds like you aren't doing a lot of rockgardens, chop and descending.
    If that's the case then I'd probably be looking at the HiFi.
    On a slightly different note, I'm about 200# and maybe not the smoothest rider although I'm not rough on equipment. I tend to lean toward overbuilt equipment rather than go weight weenie on everything.

    As for Carbon, I figure I'm going to be laying the bike down, I do occasionally ride in rockgardens and I don't trust carbon for those conditions.

    You mention none of the dealers knowing that much about the bikes.
    That honestly, along with the smoking crack prices is why I went with Kona when I got my second bike.
    Even the GF/Trek demo events didn't always allow you to get some butt on seat time with the bike(s) you thought you might want.
    For me, pulling the trigger on the purchase is a lot easier if you actually get to ride the bike before you have to pay for it.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    ya no rock gardens for me hahahaha i will leave that for my jeep on 44's for that....
    but if i am gonna go with the hifi is the superfly 100 better packaged with components?
    seems to be the same minus the carbon fibre?.....

    price is no issue ....so just want a sick bike.....

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    I've decided that you will get a HiFi Pro in a 19".
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!....i think i am gonna be going with the RF II....components are far better than the SF100 ...and it is only 3 lbs heavier not that much....only redeeming quality the SF100 has is the carbon frame or maybe attractive quality....i am not too sure on the sram stuff...xtr is tried tested and true....i am gonna be going with a 17.5 ....
    i have read every review out there so far and they are all saying the FISH is hard to be beat....
    Last edited by shawnymac; 10-13-2010 at 07:36 PM.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!....i think i am gonna be going with the RF II....components are far better than the SF100 ...and it is only 3 lbs heavier not that much....only redeeming quality the SF100 has is the carbon frame or maybe attractive quality....i am not too sure on the sram stuff...xtr is tried tested and true....i am gonna be going with a 17.5 ....
    i have read every review out there so far and they are all saying the FISH is hard to be beat....
    17.5 is too small. These bikes run on the small side, trust me. You're a little taller than me and I am selling the 17.5 for a 19. Even though the TT on the 17.5 says 23.5 it will measure a half inch less than a traditional geometry frame.
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    hmmmm really....there is a 19 SF at my buddy's store i may take a rid on it and see how it feels.....i am 5'10.5 and my inseem is 30-31
    my 69er is 17.5 perfect size but if they run smaller i guess i will go bigger....

  47. #47
    I hate that name.
    Reputation: blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by oclvframe
    Well stated
    Agreed, except for this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Willy
    The RF then uses different geometry to accommodate this extra travel in the fork, .
    The difference in geometry between the RF and HiFi is simply caused by the extra 20mm of height in the front end. If you were to put a 100mm G2 fork on a RF, the geometry would be the same as a HiFi.
    Worked at Trek/Fisher dealer 2008-2013. Only a little biased.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    hmmmm really....there is a 19 SF at my buddy's store i may take a rid on it and see how it feels.....i am 5'10.5 and my inseem is 30-31
    my 69er is 17.5 perfect size but if they run smaller i guess i will go bigger....
    Try both if you can.
    JRA Cycles
    My Trek HiFi
    NEMBA Racing
    SNEMBA
    I love learning new things in my pajamas.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    BLUNDERBUSS.....interesting ....does the front fork act like my maverick on my 69er when i am going uphill ...when i lock it out it will drop some in the front ?

    TINSHIELD....that is the problem no one carries any of these bikes let alone multiple sizes hahahaha
    they all have the base models etc....

  50. #50
    I hate that name.
    Reputation: blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by shawnymac
    BLUNDERBUSS.....interesting ....does the front fork act like my maverick on my 69er when i am going uphill ...when i lock it out it will drop some in the front ?

    No.
    Worked at Trek/Fisher dealer 2008-2013. Only a little biased.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •