Just be sure this type of frame is the direction you want to move in. Both are "efficient" XC-race oriented frames. The NRS is comparatively harsh, especially so on the small stuff and on steeper downhills where weight is redistributed to the front end, but will cycle deeply on larger hits. My quick ride impression of the Fuel is it is more friendly on the smaller stuff than the NRS, but definitely has a short travel feel to it.berudd said:Does anyone have any comparative information on the performance of these two frames? I can figure out the difference in componenets but I don't really know much about how the frames perfrom for XC riding.
It just so happens that I know of a dynamite place to send you if you want a comparison.Try mbaction.com and look for the bike comparisons section. I can't remember exactly which issue it was, but they did an article comparing these two bikes.berudd said:Does anyone have any comparative information on the performance of these two frames? I can figure out the difference in componenets but I don't really know much about how the frames perfrom for XC riding.
mikey42186 said:Try mbaction.com and look for the bike comparisons section.
I know because I read it, and then started lookin into a trek fuel. In the article, the Trek won more overall areas, but it was a close race. You might want to check it out if you have the time. Good Luck
I would NOT put one ounce of trust into any Mountain Bike Fiction article and every thing they say should be read like its a fiction novel. Oh and if you can swing it pick up a Titus Racer-X which is leaps and bounds beyond the oversprung NRS and outdated Fuel.mikey42186 said:It just so happens that I know of a dynamite place to send you if you want a comparison.Try mbaction.com and look for the bike comparisons section. I can't remember exactly which issue it was, but they did an article comparing these two bikes.
I know because I read it, and then started lookin into a trek fuel. In the article, the Trek won more overall areas, but it was a close race. You might want to check it out if you have the time. Good Luck
LOL...."oudated" Fuel ???? Please.....you kids crack me up more and more everyday....btw, the poster did not ask for 'other recommendations,' just info as to NRS vs Fuel...... I'd prefer the Fuel, but either would be perfectly fine for their intended purpose - high performance xc riding. Outdated my A$$.....Fuels rock at efficient xc riding, plain and simple...TheSherpa said:...and if you can swing it pick up a Titus Racer-X which is leaps and bounds beyond the oversprung NRS and outdated Fuel.
-TS
Yea there pretty outdated, i mean were'nt they invented in like '99. There just an overly flexy frame with 3" of travel via a link actuated single pivot. Although i do admit that the Fuel is easily over dominant on the even more outdated NRS. I'm not trying to be a bike snob, but a frame with No sag and locks out when you brake and is very oversprung. Puhlease. If you have to get a Fuel or an NRS, get the fuel but i would also look into the Epic. Plus i've ridden both bikes extensively and owned an NRS1. Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way Fuelish, but it's just my opinion.Fuelish said:LOL...."oudated" Fuel ???? Please.....you kids crack me up more and more everyday....btw, the poster did not ask for 'other recommendations,' just info as to NRS vs Fuel...... I'd prefer the Fuel, but either would be perfectly fine for their intended purpose - high performance xc riding. Outdated my A$$.....Fuels rock at efficient xc riding, plain and simple...
Late last year I was in a similar dilemma as you are currently in. I was looking for an XC-oriented FS bike and both the Fuel and NRS were on my short list (as was the Titus RX, Specialized FSR, K2 Razorback, and the Blur). Being a former Trek hardtail owner and general Trek fan, I *really* wanted to like the Fuel. In fact, I tried it out twice...berudd said:Does anyone have any comparative information on the performance of these two frames? I can figure out the difference in componenets but I don't really know much about how the frames perfrom for XC riding.
See, that's where the relativity of it all comes in. My NRS was set up with a Cane Creek AD12 rear shock -- way "plusher" than the stock Sid at the time. But there is no getting around that the bike is balanced on the edge of no sag, meaning (a) if you're climbing a hill and your weight shifts back, the suspension sags a little and (b) if your descending the rear unweights making hits that much harsher and more difficult to activate the suspension.dgangi said:Second, the rear suspension felt much better in all respects - both in the dreaded "bob" and pedal feedback as well as overall "cushiness". People who complain about the NRS being harsh must not have had the bike set up properly. It is absolutely NO harsher than the beloved Titus Racer-X.
It may seem like a life time ago to you, but 1999 was only 5 years ago. Turner bikes had suspension then that is very much the same as today, with a few minor tweaks. Would you call the 5 Spot outdated?TheSherpa said:Yea there pretty outdated, i mean were'nt they invented in like '99. There just an overly flexy frame with 3" of travel via a link actuated single pivot. Although i do admit that the Fuel is easily over dominant on the even more outdated NRS. I'm not trying to be a bike snob, but a frame with No sag and locks out when you brake and is very oversprung. Puhlease. If you have to get a Fuel or an NRS, get the fuel but i would also look into the Epic. Plus i've ridden both bikes extensively and owned an NRS1. Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way Fuelish, but it's just my opinion.
-TS
You're right - the NRS is definitely not an all-mountain machine, and attempting to turn it into one is not going to yield the results of a bike built for all-mountain use. The same futility would be found converting any of the following bikes to an all-mountain bike: Specialized FSR, Trek Fuel, Gary Fisher Sugar, Titus RX (I still don't get how a 3.75" HH100 is considered "all-mountain", but that's another debate), Cannondale Scalpel, K2 Razorback, etc. It's like trying to get a Corvette to drive well on rutted fire roads - it's not going to happen.Speedüb Nate said:My mistake in purchasing an NRS? I bought a racer bike that I tried to make into an all mountain bike, and I was asking too much of it.
Yeah, I partially fell victim to the "Bike of the Year" hype and really, truly was looking for something more efficient than my Joshua 'Y' bike. With the Cane Creek shock replacing the Sid and the 100mm fork, I think I came as close as I could expect to come to making the NRS a trail bike, but not close enough. I haven't ridden an '04 NRS, but with the switch to the Fox AVA and to 100mm-friendly geometry, I hope they aren't shooting themselves in the foot.dgangi said:Before buying any bike, a user has to figure out what his/her primary use of the bike will be and then find the correct bike to match.
I dunno when they were "invented", but am sure the first production year was 2001 (Fisher's Sugars came out in '00), so it's not really that old of a design (and there's an old expression I'm sure you've heard -" if it ain't broke, don't fix it " - change for the sake of change is not the way to go).......and, nah, you didn't rub me the wrong way...I just had to chuckle that you'd feel it was outdated , that's allTheSherpa said:i mean were'nt they invented in like '99.... Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way Fuelish, but it's just my opinion.
-TS
Well, maybe not outdated in the "old" sense but i believe that Trek will and is going to come out with a new Fuel next year or 05 which is going to be awesome. My logic is, why go with a 3" travel bike that rides decent when you can get a 4" travel VPP bike that rides exceptionally well in all aspects and doesn't limit you.Fuelish said:I dunno when they were "invented", but am sure the first production year was 2001 (Fisher's Sugars came out in '00), so it's not really that old of a design (and there's an old expression I'm sure you've heard -" if it ain't broke, don't fix it " - change for the sake of change is not the way to go).......and, nah, you didn't rub me the wrong way...I just had to chuckle that you'd feel it was outdated , that's allNo prob, Sherpa
- Fuelish
TheSherpa said:I would NOT put one ounce of trust into any Mountain Bike Fiction article and every thing they say should be read like its a fiction novel. Oh and if you can swing it pick up a Titus Racer-X which is leaps and bounds beyond the oversprung NRS and outdated Fuel.
-TS