2003 Gary Fisher Big Sur or Trek 8000

Jeff Edelen wrote:

jem wrote:


Had my Fuel 80 for two years. I did have problems early on with a
crappy seat and a chainring that bent, both of which the dealer made
better at no cost to me. Since then I've had no problems and
absolutley love the ride. Guess that makes me another of the millions
of statistical anomolies.


How much over two hundred pounds do you weigh?

-Jeff


Unfortunately about 30.

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-07-03, Zilla penned:

I'm 185-190 lbs and have had my Trek Fuel 90 for 3 yrs, avg. riding
3-4 times a week 1-1.5 hrs each ride. I've never paid attention to
dew commercials either. It's worked for me. I don't know, or care,
if it'll work for any one else. Nor do I care if what works for
anyone will work for me.

... but I'm 100% sure that JD tackles trails (if
you can even call them that) far more brutal than I'm likely to try
in the next several years.

And if/when you/I do that then yes cookie cutter bikes may not cut it.


then again, I've been
thinking it might be interesting (educational, anyway) to go hard
tail ...
--
monique

Set up an SS. Ironically, JD suggested this 1.5-2 yrs. ago
when I asked what second bike I should get. Credit when
and where credit is due.

--
- Zilla
Cary, NC
(Remove XSPAM)

I've been knocking myself out, but if you took the time to read this you
could at least offer some useful advice.

KR

P.S. - This is by far the most amount of reply posts I've ever gotten to a
Usenet post while still providing the least amount of useful information.
Is this typical of this group?


"JD" wrote in message
om...
"KR" wrote in message
...
That's fine to tell me that I'm picking wrong, but how it doesn't really
help me unless you tell me what I should buy and why?

KR

I'm saying they will fall apart under regular use by someone over two
hundred pounds. My guess would be the wheels and/or freehub would
fail first. The replacement of componentry will nickel and dime you
to the point you wished you had bought a good bike. Both of those
frames (as are most cookie-cutter frames) are designed and built
cheaply because the manufacturers figure most of the "mountain bikes"
they sell will not be used regularly. They bank on the fact that some
dipstick is going to see a mt dew commercial, buy their bike, ride it
once and then find out it's not as easy as it looks, so they put the
bike in the garage or on eBay. Those bikes that do get used are
factored in as a loss when they eventually get replaced under
warranty. It's "business", which sucks because they (especially trek
and fisher) sell bikes that are underdesigned and underbuilt for
regular use by those who really want to mountain bike. How does
waiting for a warranty replacement sound when the weather and trails
are perfect?

JD

It's not too hard to figure out, so knock yourself out.

JD

KR says:

I've been knocking myself out, but if you took the time to read this you
could at least offer some useful advice.

SOme has been offered. In JD's opinion (take it or leave it) neither is
suitable.

P.S. - This is by far the most amount of reply posts I've ever gotten to a
Usenet post while still providing the least amount of useful information.
Is this typical of this group?


Sometimes ;-)

As far as recommending a ride, most here will be wary of doing so, on the basis
that sometimes the buyer will take the advice, find out he doesn't like the
bike, and then bitch and moan for years afterward about the ****ty advice he
got, the money he wasted, etc.
Go find an alternative, throw it against the wall, and let's see if it sticks.
;-)

Steve

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message .. .
I can't speak for
you, but I'm 100% sure that JD tackles trails (if you can even call them
that) far more brutal than I'm likely to try in the next several years.

It's not about how "brutal" a trail may be, it's about how well you
ride. Hacks will tear up a bicycle on the easiest of trails.
Handling skills save a bike just as much as the quality of a bike
does.

JD

jem wrote in message r.com...
Jeff Edelen wrote:

jem wrote:


Had my Fuel 80 for two years. I did have problems early on with a
crappy seat and a chainring that bent, both of which the dealer made
better at no cost to me. Since then I've had no problems and
absolutley love the ride. Guess that makes me another of the millions
of statistical anomolies.


How much over two hundred pounds do you weigh?

-Jeff


Unfortunately about 30.

You still haven't completed the puzzle. Where do you ride? How often
do you ride? How many miles do you put in on an average week on
*singletrack*? What kind of conditions do you ride in? Without those
answers, your statement makes you much less than a statistical
anomaly. I wonder what would happen to that trek if you rode The
National on South Mountain three times a week... What do you think
Jeff?

JD

On 2004-07-04, JD penned:
"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
.. .
I can't speak for you, but I'm 100% sure that JD tackles trails (if
you can even call them that) far more brutal than I'm likely to try
in the next several years.

It's not about how "brutal" a trail may be, it's about how well you
ride. Hacks will tear up a bicycle on the easiest of trails.
Handling skills save a bike just as much as the quality of a bike
does.

This I believe, not to mention that more experienced riders probably
take better care of their bikes between rides, on average. But I've
never heard you express this angle on break-prone bikes before.

--
monique

(JD) wrote in message . com...
"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message .. .
I can't speak for
you, but I'm 100% sure that JD tackles trails (if you can even call them
that) far more brutal than I'm likely to try in the next several years.

It's not about how "brutal" a trail may be, it's about how well you
ride. Hacks will tear up a bicycle on the easiest of trails.

Like you and your Trek Y-Bike.

Handling skills save a bike just as much as the quality of a bike
does.

Like JD's Trek.

JD wrote:
jem wrote in message r.com...

Jeff Edelen wrote:

How much over two hundred pounds do you weigh?

Unfortunately about 30.

You still haven't completed the puzzle. Where do you ride? How often
do you ride? How many miles do you put in on an average week on
*singletrack*? What kind of conditions do you ride in? Without those
answers, your statement makes you much less than a statistical
anomaly. I wonder what would happen to that trek if you rode The
National on South Mountain three times a week... What do you think
Jeff?

I was betting on the answer to my question being a negative number.
Personally, at 220 lbs, I wouldn't trust a Liquid, much less a Fuel, as
my regular-use trail bike. I figure that I'm at least 25% heavier than
the "average" rider, and I'm not surprised by the idea that my bike
needs to be heavier, too. I also figure that trails like National are
somewhat rougher than the average (not to mention low-end FS) XC bikes
are designed to tackle. I'll stick with my SuperMoto for rougher trail
riding. For XC, I really like my 1FG.

-Jeff

Jeff Edelen wrote in message news:Qq3Gc.28574$WI2.755@lakeread05...
JD wrote:
jem wrote in message r.com...

Jeff Edelen wrote:

How much over two hundred pounds do you weigh?

Unfortunately about 30.

You still haven't completed the puzzle. Where do you ride? How often
do you ride? How many miles do you put in on an average week on
*singletrack*? What kind of conditions do you ride in? Without those
answers, your statement makes you much less than a statistical
anomaly. I wonder what would happen to that trek if you rode The
National on South Mountain three times a week... What do you think
Jeff?

I was betting on the answer to my question being a negative number.
Personally, at 220 lbs, I wouldn't trust a Liquid, much less a Fuel, as
my regular-use trail bike. I figure that I'm at least 25% heavier than
the "average" rider, and I'm not surprised by the idea that my bike
needs to be heavier, too. I also figure that trails like National are
somewhat rougher than the average (not to mention low-end FS) XC bikes
are designed to tackle. I'll stick with my SuperMoto for rougher trail
riding. For XC, I really like my 1FG.

Not neccessarily true on having a *heavier* bike for rougher trails.
I've ridden my 23lb singlespeed all over and I've only broken a few
components on it. The frame is still going strong after over four
years. A good xc frame will stand up to regular use, even if you push
the limits and are't jumping off of crap over 3'. My Edge FS is still
going strong as well after 3 1/2 years and it only weighs 28 lbs. I'd
break one of those trek junkers within six months, no doubt in my mind
at all.

JD