2003 Razorback 4.0 vs. 2002 Trek Fuel 90
Understanding that different bikes were built for different purposes I'd like to propose a question to those in the K2 forum and also in the Trek forum. I'm looking at buying one of two frames on the cheap. Either a 2003 K2 Razorback 4.0 with a Fox Float RL shock or a 2002 Trek 90 with a Fox Float Shock. Aside from the rear shocks, all the other componants would be the same.
Here's the questions:
1. What would be the strengths and weaknesses of each bike when compared with each other.
2. What type of riding is the K2 best at, where does it stumble? Same with the Trek 90.
3. Overall, which do you think is the better bike and why?
4. What's the rear travel on the K2 and what's the rear travel on the Trek?
1) The bikes are similar. Similar head angles and seat tube angles. THe K2 may be a tiny bit more plush, while the Fuel rear should be a bit stiffer
Originally Posted by Ruinane
2) Both bikes are lightweight XC frames. Good for XC riding. Not meant for jumping or big drops
3) Tough one. THey're both good bikes. The K2 rear shock has adjustable rebound and lockout. The Fuel 90 doesn't. The other side of that coin is that the Fuel shock is a very common type and size.... easily replaced with most brands and types. The K2 shock is a custom pull-type shock. Replacement may mean using the exact same type. There aren't many pull-shocks out there.
4) Both bikes have 3" of rear travel.
You'll have to go with your gut on this one. Personally, I'd avoid a custom shock, but that's a personal choice.