Specialized FSR XC Pro opinions, also K2 and Fisher

[mfgp]

I'm looking at buying a Specialized FSR XC Pro in the next month or two.
The model is new for 04, but is basically last year's Rock Hopper FSR Comp
or Stump Jumper FSR. Other bikes I've considered are the K2 Razorback and
Fisher Sugar. All three ride very nice....but I like the way the FSR is
spec'ed better.

Anyone have any of these bikes? Opinions? I'm particularly interested in
your opinions of the suspension.

TIA

mfgp

[MTBScottie]

>Subject: Specialized FSR XC Pro opinions, also K2 and Fisher
>From: "mfgp"
>Date: 10/23/2003 12:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I'm looking at buying a Specialized FSR XC Pro in the next month or two.
>The model is new for 04, but is basically last year's Rock Hopper FSR Comp
>or Stump Jumper FSR. Other bikes I've considered are the K2 Razorback and
>Fisher Sugar. All three ride very nice....but I like the way the FSR is
>spec'ed better.
>
>Anyone have any of these bikes? Opinions? I'm particularly interested in
>your opinions of the suspension.
>
>TIA
>
>mfgp
>
I test rode a Sugar and a Sugar + model this spring. The rear suspension on
both was phenomenal, barely even noticing larger hits. The only difference
between the two is that the Sugar + models have adjustable travel. One note if
you are looking at a 2004 Fisher bike; they have gone and kind of went weird on
the Sugar line this year. There is a higher priced Sugar Race, two 29" models,
and a Sugar +4. Last year, Fisher bikes offered a few of their better hard
tails in 29" only versions, and now have done so with the Sugars, which baffles
me.

[mfgp]

"MTBScottie" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Specialized FSR XC Pro opinions, also K2 and Fisher
> >From: "mfgp"
> >Date: 10/23/2003 12:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >I'm looking at buying a Specialized FSR XC Pro in the next month or two.
> >The model is new for 04, but is basically last year's Rock Hopper FSR
Comp
> >or Stump Jumper FSR. Other bikes I've considered are the K2 Razorback
and
> >Fisher Sugar. All three ride very nice....but I like the way the FSR is
> >spec'ed better.
> >
> >Anyone have any of these bikes? Opinions? I'm particularly interested
in
> >your opinions of the suspension.
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >mfgp
> >
> I test rode a Sugar and a Sugar + model this spring. The rear suspension
on
> both was phenomenal, barely even noticing larger hits. The only
difference
> between the two is that the Sugar + models have adjustable travel. One
note if
> you are looking at a 2004 Fisher bike; they have gone and kind of went
weird on
> the Sugar line this year. There is a higher priced Sugar Race, two 29"
models,
> and a Sugar +4. Last year, Fisher bikes offered a few of their better
hard
> tails in 29" only versions, and now have done so with the Sugars, which
baffles
> me.
>
>

I noticed that. Kind of ****ed me of, as I wanted the 3+. I was going to
settle for a 4+, but I'm not really crazy about the Rock Shox rear shock. I
would much rather have a Fox. That's one of the reason I like the
Specialized, besides the Mavic rims, Shimano cranks, etc. But I do like the
way the Fishers feel. I still haven't completely ruled it out.

[MTBScottie]

>Subject: Re: Specialized FSR XC Pro opinions, also K2 and Fisher
>From: "mfgp"
>Date: 10/24/2003 10:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"MTBScottie" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Specialized FSR XC Pro opinions, also K2 and Fisher
>> >From: "mfgp"
>> >Date: 10/23/2003 12:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >I'm looking at buying a Specialized FSR XC Pro in the next month or two.
>> >The model is new for 04, but is basically last year's Rock Hopper FSR
>Comp
>> >or Stump Jumper FSR. Other bikes I've considered are the K2 Razorback
>and
>> >Fisher Sugar. All three ride very nice....but I like the way the FSR is
>> >spec'ed better.
>> >
>> >Anyone have any of these bikes? Opinions? I'm particularly interested
>in
>> >your opinions of the suspension.
>> >
>> >TIA
>> >
>> >mfgp
>> >
>> I test rode a Sugar and a Sugar + model this spring. The rear suspension
>on
>> both was phenomenal, barely even noticing larger hits. The only
>difference
>> between the two is that the Sugar + models have adjustable travel. One
>note if
>> you are looking at a 2004 Fisher bike; they have gone and kind of went
>weird on
>> the Sugar line this year. There is a higher priced Sugar Race, two 29"
>models,
>> and a Sugar +4. Last year, Fisher bikes offered a few of their better
>hard
>> tails in 29" only versions, and now have done so with the Sugars, which
>baffles
>> me.
>>
>>
>
>I noticed that. Kind of ****ed me of, as I wanted the 3+. I was going to
>settle for a 4+, but I'm not really crazy about the Rock Shox rear shock. I
>would much rather have a Fox. That's one of the reason I like the
>Specialized, besides the Mavic rims, Shimano cranks, etc. But I do like the
>way the Fishers feel. I still haven't completely ruled it out.
>
I agree with you on the Fox shock, but you can always switch it out. I've
even considered looking at a base model Jamis Dakar and taking this winter and
upgrading it a bit at a time.

[JD]

"mfgp" > wrote in message >...
> Anyone have any of these bikes? Opinions? I'm particularly interested in
> your opinions of the suspension.

The first thing you need to know is that the moron who has been
answering your post is not a mountain biker, but a magazine hype-fed
wannabe.

JD