|   need advice quick buying bike tomorrow PLEASE | jeepster
Nov 29, 2002 7:30 PM | | well i thought i made up my mind on the 2003 sugar 2+ with hayes hydo brakes at around 2100 dollars its alittle steep but i can manage, one thing i liked right off the bat was the front and rear fox shocks but when i went to the LBS the sales guy said if i buy the bike (sugar2+) i'll almost surely have problems with it due to chain suck (not even sure exactly what that is). he said they are or will eventually have it which kinda through me off. i also saw a 2002 NRS1 i was impressed with almost all the components except for the front derailer ( deore ) cheap fix though. and it was on sale for 1600 $500 cheaper BUT i heard bad things about rockshox and have no idea if the SID version is good? i test rode the NRS1 in the parking lot :( and it felt pretty damn good i did several hard cranks to induce PEDAL BOB but wasn't able to. i need to decide by tomorrow i like both bikes i could use the extra 500+ saved dollars but not at the risk of getting any less of a bike. and i'm alot concerned about that chain suck issue is it something i should concider in not purchasing a sugar2+ i plan on useing the bike for climbing, single track, fire roads and some moderately steep technical stuff, no big hits or insane drops. what do you guys think help a brotha decide |
| You are one confused dude... | Tscheezy
Nov 29, 2002 8:13 PM | | That was a lot of questions. First of all, the drivetrain causes chainsuck, not the frame. Chainsuck is when the chain fails to let go of the teeth of the front chainring while you are pedaling, and the chain tries to wrap around the chainring, usually eating some material off the chainstay which is standing innocently in the way at the time. Elevated chainstay bikes (think Santa Cruz Superlight, Ellsworth Joker/Isis, other single pivots) pretty much make this phenomenon unnoticeable because there is no chainstay in the way to get munched when the chain sucks itself onto the chainring (it will eventually let go). A dirty/worn drivetrain causes chain suck. Both the Sugar and NRS can get chainsuck. That is not an argument for or against either one.
The type of front derailleur should have no bearing whatsoever on your purchase decision either, because the quality of that component is totally inconsequential to the rest of the bike. They are cheaply replace as well, as you stated. The deore should work fine.
The SID is a fine fork, but the new Fox is undoubtedly a better fork. I have owned 4 Rockshox forks including a SID SL and all of them were great (in their day). Now I have a Fox.
The NRS had better not bob, because Giant sacrificed almost every other aspect of the quality of the suspension to eliminate that one "issue". Honestly, the Sugar will not bob much either, and the quality of the suspension will be lightyears better than the nrs which really only is active when you are coasting. It "feels" efficient, but you are sacrificing traction and comfort while pedaling for that misleading sensation. You are going to be an all-around cruiser and the nrs was designed for racers who go into palpatations when the suspension moves in the slightest while they are pedaling. Who cares? Drop the extra coin and get the better all-around bike. If you are going to go full-bounce, go all the way. An active rear end is the only way to be.
tscheezy |
| Don't rush | Green Giant
Nov 29, 2002 8:16 PM | | Sounds to me like you are rushing in a bit. Do a bit more research. Don't buy a bike at that price point based on components (though, that is why mfg's spec a XTR r.der and junk hubs...) Find the FRAME you want, parts, forks, etc are much more easily upgradable.
The NRS and Sugar basically compete with each other as FSXC frames. The Sugar has the advantage of travel adjustability.
Chain suck is when the chain basically doesn't release from the front chainrings, jamming the chain between the crank and chainstay, marring paint etc.
Again you are spending a lot of cashola, and not to be a jerk, but it really sounds like you should research a bit more before droppign coing. |
| re: need advice quick buying bike tomorrow PLEASE | bikerboy337
Nov 30, 2002 6:45 AM | | I curently ride a NRS Air and love it for what i ride. Technical XC, no freeride or huge hits. I upgraded from a Mrazek hartail and the NRS is exactly what i'm looking for. Saying that, i wouldn't rush into getting either frame, check em both out and take your time, don
t buyit because you can get a great deal now. I have a NRS 1 (med)brand new 2002 (going to be 650 oboj that would leave about 100 to build up, that'd be a nice build set), never ridden that i am going to be putting upo soon on the boards. don't know if you've given any thought ot building one up, but its fun, thats how i did my nrs air.
feel free to email if you have any other questions
leeroyfuller@yahoo.com |
| re: need advice quick buying bike tomorrow PLEASE | Answer Man
Nov 30, 2002 7:00 AM | | Buy both. Sort it out later, "Brotha". |
| re: need advice quick buying bike tomorrow PLEASE | sasquatch
Nov 30, 2002 11:03 PM | | I have heard that the issue with chainsuck in the Gary Fisher is related to a problem with a batch of frames in 2002 that were misaligned creating problems that caused chainsuck in many bikes (see reviews in MTBR product review). This problem is supposedly not an issue in 2003.In the 2002 reviews, riders who had major chainsuck problems got replacement frames from GF so I would not be worried. In fact, I just ordered a Sugar 2+ so I hope this is all true. I tested this bike on trails, and it felt butter smooth thanks to the Fox front and back shocks. Good Luck, and by the way, I took at least six months, and tested four bikes before making my decision on what to buy. It's worth the extra time when you are spending two grand or more. |
| re: need advice quick buying bike tomorrow PLEASE | RMERREN
Dec 1, 2002 4:27 AM | | I own a NRS 1.The bike has many nice features that I wouldn't be without. Tubeless, Hayes hydrolic discs, and the Sid front fork. I've been riding the NRS for about 13 months. The bike has 2 faults. Stiff ride in the rear, of course that is why many people buy it. The other problem is chain suck, wich I have learned to live with. The chain suck can be avoided by not shifting from middle to small front ring or visa versa. I would buy another. Good luck |
| Things you should look at | æon
Dec 1, 2002 2:50 PM | | Really, the only significant differences between the bikes are the frames, and the forks (and you get a tubeless wheelset on the Giant). You need to decide what type of bike you really want. Both great bikes, but the Giant is set up more for the racer, whereas the Sugar+ is a more all-round rider. The SID SL is a very lightweight race fork, short travel, and not as stiff as the Fox. The fox has better damping, smoother travel, and adjustable travel.
The back is also very quickly adjustable to longer travel when you want more comfort on the GF. The Giant isn't designed to move much on the small stuff, and is run with no sag.
There are some geometry differences too. The GF has a long toptube and will be slacker in most of the travel settings, making it more stable at speed, but less manuverable.
Based of what you're saying, I'd still go for the Sugar, but make sure to get as much time as possible on both. |
| Things you should look at | sneakyracer
Dec 1, 2002 9:05 PM | | Strongly consider a Trek FUEL. I just built a 2002 Fuel 100 frame and the bike is awesome. I had a gary fisher hardtail (big sur zr9000 frame) so i was used to a fast bike. The Fuel 100 is soo comfy compared to the hardtail and has lot better tracion loose conditions specially in loose climbs. The difference is insane, i dont want a hartail again! Even on pavement i dont use the rear lockout on the Fuel, its simply not needed.
To me the Fuel is an extremely underrated bike, I see no need to fork over more cash for a frame unless u want to freeride (in which case a titus quasi moto, intense uzzi or elsworth id would be nice) |
| |
