2003 Gary Fisher Big Sur or Trek 8000 - Page 2

JD <dij@usafcct.com> wrote:
> "Zilla" <zilla62@XSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<Lb2Fc.3964$WV.682@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
>> I guess you're new here. JD is like an old record when
>> it comes to Treks, GF, Santa Cruz, .... ... I forget
>> what else!
>>
>> --
>> - Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)
>
> Whatever top-posters are riding.
>
>> "KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message
>> news:10e8g9fp8m00q84@corp.supernews.com...
>>> So are you saying that these two bikes might fall apart?
>>>
>>> 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
>
>>> "JD" <dij@usafcct.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ebf270c9.0407010817.4f092495@posting.google.com...
>>>> "KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message
>> news:<10e749ml3a16051@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>>> Also, if I'm 6' tall, 210 lbs., and normally
>>>>> proportioned <snip>
>>>>
>>>> First, don't listen to any pipsqueaks. They'll tell you
>>>> how fantastic cookie cutter bikes are because they
>>>> don't weigh enough to break one of those POS bikes
>>>> under normal use. If you are going to ride instead of
>>>> pretending to ride, save your money and buy a quality
>>>> bike that will not fall apart as you ride it.
>>>>
>>>> JD

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.

Of course I put together an SS and have ridden it
exclusively all week. How 'bout that for having my cake and
eating it too!

KR - all of these posts are simply opinions, all or none of
which you take or leave (including this one). Find out what
fits you best, buy it and ride it!

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

"KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message news:<10ebml6at11hp51@corp.supernews.com>...
> 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

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.

I was looking forward to reporting on many happy years of
Fuelling, but then of course the bike got run over and I got
another JD favorite, the Fisher. I really hope it doesn't
have the problems that some have reported. I can understand
having bad experiences and not wanting others to have the
same miserable experience ... all I can say is, right price,
right time, got me back out onto the trail. 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 turns out that a really good bike shop in the area stocks
Jamis, so in a few years I may have to trade up ... then
again, I've been thinking it might be interesting
(educational, anyway) to go hard tail ... and on the third
hand, I've promised myself I'll pay off a good chunk of my
debt before ponying up for more non-essentials. Damn that
common sense!

--
monique

Zilla wrote:
> JD <dij@usafcct.com> wrote:
>
>>"Zilla" <zilla62@XSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:<Lb2Fc.3964$WV.682@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
>>
>>>I guess you're new here. JD is like an old record when
>>>it comes to Treks, GF, Santa Cruz, .... ... I forget
>>>what else!
>>>
>>>--
>>>- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)
>>
>>Whatever top-posters are riding.
>>
>>
>>>"KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10e8g9fp8m00q84@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>So are you saying that these two bikes might fall apart?
>>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>
>>>>"JD" <dij@usafcct.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ebf270c9.0407010817.4f092495@posting.google.com...
>>>>
>>>>>"KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:<10e749ml3a16051@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>
>>>>>>Also, if I'm 6' tall, 210 lbs., and normally
>>>>>>proportioned <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>First, don't listen to any pipsqueaks. They'll tell you
>>>>>how fantastic cookie cutter bikes are because they
>>>>>don't weigh enough to break one of those POS bikes
>>>>>under normal use. If you are going to ride instead of
>>>>>pretending to ride, save your money and buy a quality
>>>>>bike that will not fall apart as you ride it.
>>>>>
>>>>>JD
>
>
> 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.

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.

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

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 <spam@bounceswoosh.org> 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" <dij@usafcct.com> wrote in message
news:ebf270c9.0407021959.18a8f06a@posting.google.com...
> "KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message
news:<10ebml6at11hp51@corp.supernews.com>...
> > 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

"Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in message news:<slrncedt75.iqh.spam@home.bounceswoosh.org>...
> 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 <jmessick@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:<f8JFc.123750$tH1.4422525@twister.southeast.rr.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" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in
> message
> news:<slrncedt75.iqh.spam@home.bounceswoosh.org>...
>> 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

dij@usafcct.com (JD) wrote in message news:<ebf270c9.0407041052.438f24c8@posting.google.com>...
> "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in
> message
> news:<slrncedt75.iqh.spam@home.bounceswoosh.org>...
> > 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 <jmessick@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:<f8JFc.-
> 123750$tH1.4422525@twister.southeast.rr.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

"KR" <yeah@right.net> wrote in message news:<10egbdchu8c3hd7@corp.supernews.com>...
> I've been knocking myself out, but if you took the time to
> read this you could at least offer some useful advice.

Try this really neato thing called "Google" and search this
newsgroup. I found the 2 year old post of Blaine's to repost
that video in about ten seconds. That's much less time than
I would have to take by sitting here and breast feeding you
the information.

JD

bicycle@charter.net (R.White) wrote in message news:<27bc6c79.0407041429.1df58267@posting.google.com>...
> dij@usafcct.com (JD) wrote in message
> news:<ebf270c9.0407041052.438f24c8@posting.google.com>...
> > "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in
> > message
> > news:<slrncedt75.iqh.spam@home.bounceswoosh.org>...
> > > 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.

The funniest thing about this leg hump is that you'll never
truly know how well or hackish I might ride, ricky. Thanks
for the starch.

http://bbauer.gomen.org/videos/idaho.wmv

JD