Fuel 90 or NRS 2?

[Mr. Knowitall]

I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).

Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.

Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
have any complaints?

Thanks, Jason

 

[Danny]

I'm still new to all of this.. but I have an NRS1 with the Avids and I love them. I'm around 210 lbs
and they stop very well... Just my opinion though. Danny

"Mr. Knowitall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
> Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
>
> Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
> Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
> sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
>
> Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
> have any complaints?
>
> Thanks, Jason

 

[Twisties]

i was thinking of bying an nrs2 (the only reason i didnt was because it was about $500 out of my price range)

i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.

look at www.mtbreview.com

that should help you out a bit.

 

[Westie]

"Mr. Knowitall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
> Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
>
> Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
> Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
> sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
>
> Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
> have any complaints?
>
> Thanks, Jason

Sorry, can't help you compare the two but I can offer some input on the NRS. I've got an NRS2.
Overall, I'm very happy with it. I'm 190 pounds and got the firm ride spring kit which made a
difference to the Skareb forks for me. Not as much flex when I'm bouncing around and off stuff. The
shock bottoming out causing tyre to rub on the left hand side of the arch had been a big problem.

The mech brakes are just OK. I think that the Avid levers and Shimano callipers are fine for the
price. They stop really well when they're working 100% - but they're mech and can't compete with the
feel of hydraulic and aren't self-adjusting. OK, so it's probably not enough to really justify the
extra money to upgrade but I'm going to do it eventually. With hindsight, the only error that I feel
I made was getting cheaper mechanical disks over hydraulic disks. I'm gonna get me some Hope Mini's
when I've got the dollars spare.

Bob isn't really much of an issue with the NRS suspension. You're gonna get _some_ regardless of
what you ride. I'm inclined to run the so called 'No Sag' SID XC at a lower pressure than
recommended anyway. You can pump it up hard if you prefer it like that.

What's the price difference? Have you ridden the Trek? How did it FEEL? I think that it's more of an
issue of which feels better. Both bikes are fairly closely specc'd.
--
Westie

 

[Zilla]

I've been happy with my Trek Fuel 90, although I bought it since it fit me better that the Giants
not because it was necessarily "better". I pump the rear shock at 180-185 psi (I weigh 185 lbs) and
it does not bob as much as when I pumped it to just 170 lbs. I bought it at $1300 2 yrs ago.

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

"Mr. Knowitall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
> Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
>
> Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
> Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
> sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
>
> Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
> have any complaints?
>
> Thanks, Jason

 

[MTBScottie]

[email protected] (Mr. Knowitall) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
> Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
>
> Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
> Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
> sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
>
> Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
> have any complaints?
>
> Thanks, Jason

Your really do need to break those discs in before you notice a difference. I have Avid mechanical
discs on my Giant Rainier and for about the first month, I couldn't see what all the excitement was
about. The only difference I noticed was that I could ride through mud and water without brake fade,
which alone was nice. I took the Rainier into a different Giant shop in town, because I was
displeased with the shop that I bought it from, and had a few cogs replaced. The mechanic mentioned
he would go over the brakes and everything else for me. It turns out that the original shop didn't
have the discs set up properly to begin with (not being a gearhead, I can't really tell you what was
wrong with their set up). They went over the bike once and he said I'd notice a huge difference. Two
rides went by and still nothing all that great, but all at once, WOW, what a difference. So there's
two points for you to consider; give the brakes a chance, and the great customer service Giant
dealers offer you. Honestly, since I didn't buy that bike there, I don't feel they really needed to
go over it like they did, but they did, no questions asked, and would not accept any money for it.
The Giant NRS 2 is probably one of Giants most popular models, and from hanging around the shop the
past three years, I'd say if you have the opportunity to get one now, get it, because they typically
run out of them by mid summer and have to look across the country to TRY to find one for you. I've
test rode two NRS bikes for 8-10 mile rides and can say, as many others will tell you, the NRS
system really works to eliminate bob. I will also tell you I recently attended a bike festival where
Gary Fisher and Trek bikes had demo machines to try out, and I saw no less then 3 Trek Fuels off the
trail with chain suck problems, which I have heard is common in Trek and Fisher bikes. 3 isn't many,
but it's the first time I've seen that many people off the trail with the same problem.

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

On 25 May 2003 19:36:06 -0700, [email protected] (Mr. Knowitall) wrote:

>I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
>Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
>
>Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
>Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
>sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
>
>Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
>have any complaints?
>
>Thanks, Jason

I work in a shop that sells both and have ridden both off-road.

I think the NRS has a much more efficient suspension system than the Fuel, but you should know the
differences before you buy. One person may prefer the NRS' harsher ride and higher efficiency, while
another would prefer the Fuel's more active rear end.

The NRS is designed to do little to nothing over small bumps and act like a hardtail until a bump
big enough to activate the shock is hit. A properly set up NRS has zero sag when the rider sits on
it. The Fuel is a bit plusher, as it gets set up with a small amount of sag, which enables it to
respond to smaller bumps.

All discs have a break-in period. If you're unsure about discs, try to test a bike with well broken
in set. Avid mechanicals are well respected among discs and have proven to work well.

I'm not a big fan of RockShox forks, so I like the Giant's fork better. When I built up my VT1, I
swapped the Psylo for a Bomber. Both rear shocks are fine.

Only you can make the decision of hardtail-like ride or a more plush ride. Both are good bikes.

Barry

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

On 26 May 2003 18:00:18 +0950, Twisties <[email protected]> wrote:

>i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.

Nothing is EVER sold for more than it's worth. <G> If an item isn't "worth" the asking price to a
willing buyer, it won't sell at all.

>
>look at www.mtbreview.com

Reviews posted by 13 year olds who have never even seen half the items, much less actually used
them, certainly are helpful!

Barry

 

[Danny]

Alright... who told on me?

Danny ;-)

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <n/a@> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >look at www.mtbreview.com
>
> Reviews posted by 13 year olds who have never even seen half the items, much less actually used
> them, certainly are helpful!
>
> Barry

 

[Matt]

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <n/a@> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 26 May 2003 18:00:18 +0950, Twisties <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.
>
> Nothing is EVER sold for more than it's worth. <G> If an item isn't "worth" the asking price to a
> willing buyer, it won't sell at all.
>
> >
> >look at www.mtbreview.com
>
> Reviews posted by 13 year olds who have never even seen half the items, much less actually used
> them, certainly are helpful!
>
> Barry

I think MTBR gets too much of a bad rep sometimes. Yeah, there are 13 year old know-nots posting
reviews there, but they're pretty easy to spot. What I like to look for on the reviews are the
negative comments that are a common thread through multiple reviews. If you see something like
that, it's probably a much more relevant piece of info. than some kid posting "This bike ROX....5
flaming turds!!"

I think mtbr.com has it's place if you know how to use it. It's just like anything else - be it a
website, magazine, newsgroup, or even your LBS - don't take any single source as gospel. Use them
all, and integrate it all together to come up with some relevant information.

-matt

 

[Twisties]

[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.
>
> Nothing is EVER sold for more than it's worth. <G> If an item isn't "worth" the asking price to a
> willing buyer, it won't sell at all.
>
> >
> >look at www.mtbreview.com
>
> Reviews posted by 13 year olds who have never even seen half the items, much less actually used
> them, certainly are helpful!
>
> Barry

well soorrriieee barry!

geez i was only trying to help out!

if u didnt notice, Mr.knowitall (who started this thread)
said:
Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get?

he asked for an opinion and i gave it to him......

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

On 27 May 2003 16:30:10 +0950, Twisties <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.
>>
>> Nothing is EVER sold for more than it's worth. <G> If an item isn't "worth" the asking price to a
>> willing buyer, it won't sell at all.
>>
>> >
>> >look at www.mtbreview.com
>>
>> Reviews posted by 13 year olds who have never even seen half the items, much less actually used
>> them, certainly are helpful!
>>
>> Barry
>
>well soorrriieee barry!
>
>geez i was only trying to help out!
>
>if u didnt notice, Mr.knowitall (who started this thread) said: Any input would be much
>appreciated! Which one would you get?
>
>he asked for an opinion and i gave it to him......

You certainly did. <G>

Barry

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

On Mon, 26 May 2003 23:08:39 -0400, "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I think MTBR gets too much of a bad rep sometimes. Yeah, there are 13 year old know-nots posting
>reviews there, but they're pretty easy to spot. What I like to look for on the reviews are the
>negative comments that are a common thread through multiple reviews.

I know what you're saying, but why to I bag on MTBR? "The rest of the story" is missing. The size of
a person, the person's skill level, riding experience, fitness level, local terrain, rider
expectations, or even their mood that day, are missing. We don't even know the skill level of the
rider or shop when it came to setting up a particular bike for the ride. Some full suspension
designs are complicated to set up, and if done wrong, as some often are, can create a recurring
"this bike sucks" theme.

I can't recall how many times, I've read reviews there, along with roadbikereview, where one of the
following happens:

A.) The reviewer complains that an $800 has low-end components compared the the $2400 bike they
also tested.

B.) An ultralight, full race, 3" travel bike didn't handle a 3 foot drop well.

C. ) A semi-active bike, like the NRS or Specialized Epic "punished" the rider through washboards,
or a long travel bike "bobbed".

How many times have you heard a bike's "reputation" repeated in a watering hole or on a trail by
someone who's never been on it, but their "buddy" has? <G> At least there you can consider the
source of the info.

So, in the end, I simply suggest people ride every bike they are interested in, in the way they plan
to use it,

Barry

 

[MTBScottie]

Twisties <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.
> >
> > Nothing is EVER sold for more than it's worth. <G> If an item isn't "worth" the asking price to
> > a willing buyer, it won't sell at all.
> >
> > >
> > >look at www.mtbreview.com
> >
> > Reviews posted by 13 year olds who have never even seen half the items, much less actually used
> > them, certainly are helpful!
> >
> > Barry
>
> well soorrriieee barry!
>
> geez i was only trying to help out!
>
> if u didnt notice, Mr.knowitall (who started this thread) said: Any input would be much
> appreciated! Which one would you get?
>
> he asked for an opinion and i gave it to him......

Actually there are alot of good reviews on mtbreview.com. In some cases you do have to read through
a bit of junk to find them, but they are there.

 

[Penny S.]

B a r r y B u r k e J r . thoughtfully penned:
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 23:08:39 -0400, "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think MTBR gets too much of a bad rep sometimes. Yeah, there are 13 year old know-nots posting
>> reviews there, but they're pretty easy to spot. What I like to look for on the reviews are the
>> negative comments that are a common thread through multiple reviews.
>
> I know what you're saying, but why to I bag on MTBR? "The rest of the story" is missing. The size
> of a person, the person's skill level, riding experience, fitness level, local terrain, rider
> expectations, or even their mood that day, are missing. We don't even know the skill level of the
> rider or shop when it came to setting up a particular bike for the ride. Some full suspension
> designs are complicated to set up, and if done wrong, as some often are, can create a recurring
> "this bike sucks" theme.
>
> I can't recall how many times, I've read reviews there, along with roadbikereview, where one of
> the following happens:
>
> A.) The reviewer complains that an $800 has low-end components compared the the $2400 bike they
> also tested.
>
> B.) An ultralight, full race, 3" travel bike didn't handle a 3 foot drop well.
>
> C. ) A semi-active bike, like the NRS or Specialized Epic "punished" the rider through washboards,
> or a long travel bike "bobbed".
>
>
> How many times have you heard a bike's "reputation" repeated in a watering hole or on a trail by
> someone who's never been on it, but their "buddy" has? <G> At least there you can consider the
> source of the info.
>
> So, in the end, I simply suggest people ride every bike they are interested in, in the way they
> plan to use it,
>
> Barry

I went to the trail reviews again the other day, just to see if there was anything new that I should
explore.... Jeez, 90% of them are written by semi-illiterate 13 years old (or at least that's how it
appears) "Dewd this trail rocks but it ain't for babies..." puh-leeze.

penny

 

[Bomba]

Penny S. wrote:

> Jeez, 90% of them are written by semi-illiterate 13 years old (or at least that's how it appears)
> "Dewd this trail rocks but it ain't for babies..." puh-leeze.

"Semi-illiterate"? <snicker>

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm

 

[Mtbguy]

I've got a Fuel 90, and this is what I like about it. Last season I blew the frame. The Trek Rep
came in, said, "New frame", and now I'm on the 2003 Fuel 90. The ride is fine, but the factory
service is excellent.

MTBguy.ca


On 25 May 2003 19:36:06 -0700, [email protected] (Mr. Knowitall) wrote:

>I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to a
>Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
>
>Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
>Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
>sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
>
>Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do you
>have any complaints?
>
>Thanks, Jason

 

[Penny S.]

bomba thoughtfully penned:
> Penny S. wrote:
>
> > Jeez, 90% of them are written by
>> semi-illiterate 13 years old (or at least that's how it appears) "Dewd this trail rocks but it
>> ain't for babies..." puh-leeze.
>
> "Semi-illiterate"? <snicker>

hey, I"m still working on my first cuppa here....

p.

 

[Vaughn]

180-185 lbs on the shock! WOW, I weigh 190 and ride it around 120 (I think recommended) is around
135 for that weight. And I get very little bob, only when standing and hammering. Why not go ahead
and get a hardtail? But on subject I love my fuel. I can't comment on the fork since my 2002 fuel
has a black . I tried an nrs but it just didn't feel right. The fuel is a little quicker in the
switchbacks, while the NRS felt slow steering but a little more stable at higher speeds. Bottom
line, test ride both (and others if you can) and pick what feels best for YOU.

Vaughn

"Zilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been happy with my Trek Fuel 90, although I bought it since it fit me better that the Giants
> not because it was necessarily "better". I pump the rear shock at 180-185 psi (I weigh 185 lbs)
> and it does not bob as much as when I pumped it to just 170 lbs. I bought it at $1300 2 yrs ago.
>
>
> --
> - Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)
>
>
> "Mr. Knowitall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I'm getting a FS mountain bike and would like to collect some opinions. It's pretty much down to
> > a Giant NRS 2 or a Trek Fuel 90 (non-disk).
> >
> > Which frame is better at reducing bob? Sid Race (Giant) or Fox Float R (Trek)? Skarab (Giant) or
> > Duke XC (Trek)? What about the mechanical disks (Avid) on the NRS? I rode it and I though they
> > sucked but I've read that you have to break them in before they really start to bite.
> >
> > Any input would be much appreciated! Which one would you get? Or, if you have one of them, do
> > you have any complaints?
> >
> > Thanks, Jason

 

[Jd]

Twisties <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> i was thinking of bying an nrs2 (the only reason i didnt was because it was about $500 out of my
> price range)

Save your money.

> i didnt look at trek because i only ever hear that they sell them for more than it is worth.

...and trek bikes break easily.

> look at www.mtbreview.com
>
> that should help you out a bit.

Only if you like sifting through the inane drivelings of e-tarded twelve year olds who live on mt
dew and pixie stix.

JD