V
- Status
P
Penny S.
Guest
V
Voodoo
Guest
"Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> voodoo scribbled :
> > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
>
> and this will be even better....
>
I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they ride nice and firm, and not
spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> voodoo scribbled :
> > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
>
> and this will be even better....
>
I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they ride nice and firm, and not
spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
C
Chris
Guest
"voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > voodoo scribbled :
> > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> >
> > and this will be even better....
> >
> I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
ride
> nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
>
So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
Chris
>
> "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > voodoo scribbled :
> > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> >
> > and this will be even better....
> >
> I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
ride
> nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
>
So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
Chris
D
Destroy
Guest
> I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me
they ride
> nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
>
Seems as though the trend is that its not so much the bike itself as it is the suspension
thats on it.
Examples: http://www.answerproducts.com/spv/htmspv1.htm
http://www.foxracingshox.com/website/TechnologyDesc.asp?Market=MBike&CategoryId=15&Id=10&count=3
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBrain.jsp?a=b#BRAIN
they ride
> nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
>
Seems as though the trend is that its not so much the bike itself as it is the suspension
thats on it.
Examples: http://www.answerproducts.com/spv/htmspv1.htm
http://www.foxracingshox.com/website/TechnologyDesc.asp?Market=MBike&CategoryId=15&Id=10&count=3
http://www.specialized.com/SBCBrain.jsp?a=b#BRAIN
V
Voodoo
Guest
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > >
> > > and this will be even better....
> > >
> > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
> ride
> > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> >
>
> So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
>
> I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
>
then why do you own one?
news:[email protected]...
>
> "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > >
> > > and this will be even better....
> > >
> > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
> ride
> > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> >
>
> So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
>
> I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
>
then why do you own one?
M
MTBScottie
Guest
"voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > voodoo scribbled :
> > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> >
> > and this will be even better....
> >
> I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they ride nice and firm, and not
> spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
At a recent bike festival, I test rode both a Team Sugar model and also one of the Sugar + models
(can't remember which specific model). Both bikes did ride wonderfully, without a hint of bob, but
as discussed here many times, I also witnessed at least 3 other riders along the trail that same day
with chain suck problems, something that seems to be inherent with Gary Fisher bikes.
> "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > voodoo scribbled :
> > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> >
> > and this will be even better....
> >
> I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they ride nice and firm, and not
> spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
At a recent bike festival, I test rode both a Team Sugar model and also one of the Sugar + models
(can't remember which specific model). Both bikes did ride wonderfully, without a hint of bob, but
as discussed here many times, I also witnessed at least 3 other riders along the trail that same day
with chain suck problems, something that seems to be inherent with Gary Fisher bikes.
V
Voodoo
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > >
> > > and this will be even better....
> > >
> > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
ride
> > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
>
> At a recent bike festival, I test rode both a Team Sugar model and also one of the Sugar + models
> (can't remember which specific model). Both bikes did ride wonderfully, without a hint of bob, but
> as discussed here many times, I also witnessed at least 3 other riders along the trail that same
> day with chain suck problems, something that seems to be inherent with Gary Fisher bikes.
How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was because
of worn chainrings.
> "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > >
> > > and this will be even better....
> > >
> > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
ride
> > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
>
> At a recent bike festival, I test rode both a Team Sugar model and also one of the Sugar + models
> (can't remember which specific model). Both bikes did ride wonderfully, without a hint of bob, but
> as discussed here many times, I also witnessed at least 3 other riders along the trail that same
> day with chain suck problems, something that seems to be inherent with Gary Fisher bikes.
How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was because
of worn chainrings.
B
Bomba
Guest
voodoo wrote:
> How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was because
> of worn chainrings.
Not always, although that is the most common cause. Sometimes it's caused by problems in design,
manufacture, or chainline. The Bontrager cranks are reknowned for this problem and I believe they're
fitted to the Sugars. And let's not start on the Sugar's tendency to snap...
--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
> How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was because
> of worn chainrings.
Not always, although that is the most common cause. Sometimes it's caused by problems in design,
manufacture, or chainline. The Bontrager cranks are reknowned for this problem and I believe they're
fitted to the Sugars. And let's not start on the Sugar's tendency to snap...
--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
C
Chris
Guest
"voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > > >
> > > > and this will be even better....
> > > >
> > > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
> > ride
> > > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> > >
> >
> > So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
> >
> > I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
> >
> then why do you own one?
>
I think the Sugar is a very good bike, and for where I ride, how I ride, and who I am I think it's a
great bike...but that doesn't mean Intense Spiders or Tracers, Turner Burners, or even a SC Blur
wouldn't feel a bit better. The difference that made me go with Fisher? About $1500.
Chris
>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > > >
> > > > and this will be even better....
> > > >
> > > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
> > ride
> > > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> > >
> >
> > So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
> >
> > I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
> >
> then why do you own one?
>
I think the Sugar is a very good bike, and for where I ride, how I ride, and who I am I think it's a
great bike...but that doesn't mean Intense Spiders or Tracers, Turner Burners, or even a SC Blur
wouldn't feel a bit better. The difference that made me go with Fisher? About $1500.
Chris
V
Voodoo
Guest
"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> voodoo wrote:
>
> > How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I
always
> > thought it was because of worn chainrings.
>
> Not always, although that is the most common cause. Sometimes it's caused by problems in design,
> manufacture, or chainline. The Bontrager cranks are reknowned for this problem and I believe
> they're fitted to the Sugars. And let's not start on the Sugar's tendency to snap...
>
They break?! Why are they breaking?
> voodoo wrote:
>
> > How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I
always
> > thought it was because of worn chainrings.
>
> Not always, although that is the most common cause. Sometimes it's caused by problems in design,
> manufacture, or chainline. The Bontrager cranks are reknowned for this problem and I believe
> they're fitted to the Sugars. And let's not start on the Sugar's tendency to snap...
>
They break?! Why are they breaking?
V
Voodoo
Guest
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
>
> "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > > > >
> > > > > and this will be even better....
> > > > >
> > > > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me
they
> > > ride
> > > > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
> > >
> > > I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
> > >
> > then why do you own one?
> >
>
> I think the Sugar is a very good bike, and for where I ride, how I ride,
and
> who I am I think it's a great bike...but that doesn't mean Intense Spiders or Tracers, Turner
> Burners, or even a SC Blur wouldn't feel a bit better. The difference that made me go with Fisher?
> About $1500.
>
That's a nice difference. Regardless of the name on the bike, what really counts is if you enjoy the
ride. I've been hesitant/intimidated to go with a FS ride, which is why I'm going with another HT.
Some of my riding pals have pointed out to me in the past, that they are great for tired old farts
like me, and I would love it. I dunno, I don't feel that tired. I may take the plunge one day.
news
[email protected]...>
> "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > > > >
> > > > > and this will be even better....
> > > > >
> > > > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me
they
> > > ride
> > > > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you haven't ridden one, and would vote it the best?
> > >
> > > I own a Sugar, and even I know better than that.
> > >
> > then why do you own one?
> >
>
> I think the Sugar is a very good bike, and for where I ride, how I ride,
and
> who I am I think it's a great bike...but that doesn't mean Intense Spiders or Tracers, Turner
> Burners, or even a SC Blur wouldn't feel a bit better. The difference that made me go with Fisher?
> About $1500.
>
That's a nice difference. Regardless of the name on the bike, what really counts is if you enjoy the
ride. I've been hesitant/intimidated to go with a FS ride, which is why I'm going with another HT.
Some of my riding pals have pointed out to me in the past, that they are great for tired old farts
like me, and I would love it. I dunno, I don't feel that tired. I may take the plunge one day.
B
Bomba
Guest
voodoo wrote:
> "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>voodoo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I
>>
> always
>
>>>thought it was because of worn chainrings.
>>
>>Not always, although that is the most common cause. Sometimes it's caused by problems in design,
>>manufacture, or chainline. The Bontrager cranks are reknowned for this problem and I believe
>>they're fitted to the Sugars. And let's not start on the Sugar's tendency to snap...
>>
>
> They break?!
Certainly the older models did. I assume they've sorted out that problem now.
> Why are they breaking?
Poorly made, low quality tubing, bad design. Take your pick.
--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
> "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>voodoo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I
>>
> always
>
>>>thought it was because of worn chainrings.
>>
>>Not always, although that is the most common cause. Sometimes it's caused by problems in design,
>>manufacture, or chainline. The Bontrager cranks are reknowned for this problem and I believe
>>they're fitted to the Sugars. And let's not start on the Sugar's tendency to snap...
>>
>
> They break?!
Certainly the older models did. I assume they've sorted out that problem now.
> Why are they breaking?
Poorly made, low quality tubing, bad design. Take your pick.
--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm
b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
P
Penny S.
Guest
voodoo scribbled :
>
> How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was because
> of worn chainrings.
if you do any research at all on GF bikes, chain suck is the #1 issue with them. Something in the
drive train design. I read enough negative reviews to keep me from ever buying one.
Penny
>
> How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was because
> of worn chainrings.
if you do any research at all on GF bikes, chain suck is the #1 issue with them. Something in the
drive train design. I read enough negative reviews to keep me from ever buying one.
Penny
C
Chris
Guest
"voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> That's a nice difference. Regardless of the name on the bike, what really counts is if you enjoy
> the ride. I've been hesitant/intimidated to go with
a
> FS ride, which is why I'm going with another HT. Some of my riding pals
have
> pointed out to me in the past, that they are great for tired old farts
like
> me, and I would love it. I dunno, I don't feel that tired. I may take the plunge one day.
>
An efficient short-travel design, like a Sugar, is great for HT riders looking to move up. The
weight difference isn't much, and with suspension you (generally) ride faster and smoother as the
rear end tends to stick to the trails at speed, rather than pop up over rocks and roots. I find the
Sugar to be a great climber, too. Because it is a short-travel (2.8") ride, you don't get a lot of
the energy-sapping bob you would out of most now-common 5" rides.
If you're looking for a new ride, go check out a Sugar. If you have lots of friends on them, then
your terrain is probably well suited to the bike -
i.e. fast, hard, less than 2 feet of air underneath you when dropping/jumping.
I've upgraded mine all to hell - it weighs about 27 pounds, nothing breaks, and the only complaint I
have is in the AD-5 rear shock (give me rebound control!!).
Also, they're a bit easier on the ass of a "tired old fart." Of course, so is a Thudbuster.
Chris
>
> >
> That's a nice difference. Regardless of the name on the bike, what really counts is if you enjoy
> the ride. I've been hesitant/intimidated to go with
a
> FS ride, which is why I'm going with another HT. Some of my riding pals
have
> pointed out to me in the past, that they are great for tired old farts
like
> me, and I would love it. I dunno, I don't feel that tired. I may take the plunge one day.
>
An efficient short-travel design, like a Sugar, is great for HT riders looking to move up. The
weight difference isn't much, and with suspension you (generally) ride faster and smoother as the
rear end tends to stick to the trails at speed, rather than pop up over rocks and roots. I find the
Sugar to be a great climber, too. Because it is a short-travel (2.8") ride, you don't get a lot of
the energy-sapping bob you would out of most now-common 5" rides.
If you're looking for a new ride, go check out a Sugar. If you have lots of friends on them, then
your terrain is probably well suited to the bike -
i.e. fast, hard, less than 2 feet of air underneath you when dropping/jumping.
I've upgraded mine all to hell - it weighs about 27 pounds, nothing breaks, and the only complaint I
have is in the AD-5 rear shock (give me rebound control!!).
Also, they're a bit easier on the ass of a "tired old fart." Of course, so is a Thudbuster.
Chris
C
Chris
Guest
"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> voodoo wrote:
> >
> > They break?!
>
> Certainly the older models did. I assume they've sorted out that problem now.
>
> > Why are they breaking?
>
> Poorly made, low quality tubing, bad design. Take your pick.
>
> --
Sugars through '01 had a "normal" downtube that liked to seperate itself from the BB shell. Starting
in '03 they did that bi-oval tapering job on all their bikes, and I have only seen one case of frame
failure in a '02-on Sugar. Also, they claim the tubing is of a higher quality, too.
I can say that if the bike were prone or more likely to break, mine would've. I kick it's ass - I
can be a very rough rider. I have no problems with the frame.
Chris
> voodoo wrote:
> >
> > They break?!
>
> Certainly the older models did. I assume they've sorted out that problem now.
>
> > Why are they breaking?
>
> Poorly made, low quality tubing, bad design. Take your pick.
>
> --
Sugars through '01 had a "normal" downtube that liked to seperate itself from the BB shell. Starting
in '03 they did that bi-oval tapering job on all their bikes, and I have only seen one case of frame
failure in a '02-on Sugar. Also, they claim the tubing is of a higher quality, too.
I can say that if the bike were prone or more likely to break, mine would've. I kick it's ass - I
can be a very rough rider. I have no problems with the frame.
Chris
C
Chris
Guest
"voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > > >
> > > > and this will be even better....
> > > >
> > > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
> ride
> > > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> >
> > At a recent bike festival, I test rode both a Team Sugar model and also one of the Sugar +
> > models (can't remember which specific model). Both bikes did ride wonderfully, without a hint of
> > bob, but as discussed here many times, I also witnessed at least 3 other riders along the trail
> > that same day with chain suck problems, something that seems to be inherent with Gary Fisher
> > bikes.
>
> How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I
always
> thought it was because of worn chainrings.
>
You can google for the whole story, but to make things quick, some '01 and '02 Sugars came with a
too-short BB, which goofed up the chainline, which, coupled with poopoo Bontrager rings, caused a
lot of chainsuck. No Sugar for sale anywhere anymore has the BB problem, but they all come with
Bontrager cranks (thank you Trek). If you pick one up, prepare to say the words "Race" and "Face" a
lot in the near future...cranks, stem, bar, seatpost, bb.
Chris -to be fair, I have about 1500 miles on the Bontrager cranks and rings that came on my Sugar.
To be fair, though, I did do this to it: http://www.pbase.com/cimccreary/x-cal
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > voodoo scribbled :
> > > > > If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
> > > >
> > > > and this will be even better....
> > > >
> > > I know a couple people that ride them. They love'em. They told me they
> ride
> > > nice and firm, and not spongy like a lot of full suspensions.
> >
> > At a recent bike festival, I test rode both a Team Sugar model and also one of the Sugar +
> > models (can't remember which specific model). Both bikes did ride wonderfully, without a hint of
> > bob, but as discussed here many times, I also witnessed at least 3 other riders along the trail
> > that same day with chain suck problems, something that seems to be inherent with Gary Fisher
> > bikes.
>
> How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I
always
> thought it was because of worn chainrings.
>
You can google for the whole story, but to make things quick, some '01 and '02 Sugars came with a
too-short BB, which goofed up the chainline, which, coupled with poopoo Bontrager rings, caused a
lot of chainsuck. No Sugar for sale anywhere anymore has the BB problem, but they all come with
Bontrager cranks (thank you Trek). If you pick one up, prepare to say the words "Race" and "Face" a
lot in the near future...cranks, stem, bar, seatpost, bb.
Chris -to be fair, I have about 1500 miles on the Bontrager cranks and rings that came on my Sugar.
To be fair, though, I did do this to it: http://www.pbase.com/cimccreary/x-cal
B
Bomba
Guest
Chris wrote:
> Sugars through '01 had a "normal" downtube that liked to seperate itself from the BB shell.
> Starting in '03 they did that bi-oval tapering job on all their bikes, and I have only seen one
> case of frame failure in a '02-on Sugar. Also, they claim the tubing is of a higher quality, too.
The '02's suffered from lots of broken rear swing-arms I believe.
> Sugars through '01 had a "normal" downtube that liked to seperate itself from the BB shell.
> Starting in '03 they did that bi-oval tapering job on all their bikes, and I have only seen one
> case of frame failure in a '02-on Sugar. Also, they claim the tubing is of a higher quality, too.
The '02's suffered from lots of broken rear swing-arms I believe.
P
Piratelord®
Guest
The best at any price? Don't know. I don't want to spend that much on a pedal bike.
The best for under $1500? I vote Jamis XLT 1.0.
The best for under $1000? I vote for the Haro Extreme X2.
There you have it. "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
The best for under $1500? I vote Jamis XLT 1.0.
The best for under $1000? I vote for the Haro Extreme X2.
There you have it. "voodoo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I had to choose, it would be a Sugar.
M
MTBScottie
Guest
"Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> voodoo scribbled :
> >
> > How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was
> > because of worn chainrings.
>
> if you do any research at all on GF bikes, chain suck is the #1 issue with them. Something in the
> drive train design. I read enough negative reviews to keep me from ever buying one.
>
> Penny
It's to bad too, because
1. They Sugars are all fairly expensive and...
2. They really do ride and climb very well.
I'm interested to see the newer GF model, "Cake"
news:<[email protected]>...
> voodoo scribbled :
> >
> > How the heck would a particular model bike create/cause chainsuck? I always thought it was
> > because of worn chainrings.
>
> if you do any research at all on GF bikes, chain suck is the #1 issue with them. Something in the
> drive train design. I read enough negative reviews to keep me from ever buying one.
>
> Penny
It's to bad too, because
1. They Sugars are all fairly expensive and...
2. They really do ride and climb very well.
I'm interested to see the newer GF model, "Cake"
- Status
Similar threads
