[pablo4429]

ok so i am looking at either a fury or a sin frame for my first FS build. I ride in socal and dont get too much air time but I do bomb down any rocky anything and go generally as fast as possible but the bike has to be able to climb as well. i was looking at the Sin on greenfish for 700 and it seemed like a great deal or an older fury frame from MC for the same pricerange. However my only reservation about the sin is how i have seen some claims of the frame just breaking in half, i was wondering just how common that was and is it due to people expecting too much from the frame?
thanks all

 

[eknomf]

Don't buy a sin - it will probably break in half plus the geo is pretty weird. The material on them is very thin. A fury would be a much better choice.

 

[Mig Pilot]

Of the Sins I know of, all of them handled pretty much what was thrown at them. I think though the Shockwave is a better evolution of the frame.

By the sounds of how you ride, a Fury would be an excellent choice. I'd love one but they don't come in my size

 

[mcrumble69]

For the type of riding you describe I highly recommend the Fury as long as you don't need more rear travel.
It's exactly what I have used my Fury for on rocky, rooty, New England trails the last few years and it's performed flawlessly.

Also since you mentioned climbing and downhilling, I recommend a longer travel fork with some kind of travel adjustment so you can get the best of both worlds..
Raise it up for going down and lower it for going up..

As for the Sin, I have never ridden one, but I have heard enough horror stories to not recommend one.
Although it's possible, I don't remember hearing of any issues with the Fury..

 

[eknomf]

The sin came after the 9.5 and is pretty much just a bastardization of it. Here's what happened to Sins when they came back to Mountain Cycle with broken headtubes sometime around 2005...

Go with the 9.5 if you want a big bike or a fury or something else similar if you want a smaller one

 

[Ericmopar]

I also recommend the Fury. It's capable of some hard hits and has a shorter quicker handling wheelbase than a Santa Cruz Heckler.
The new ones had the head angle slackened to about 68 deg, with a 140mm fork, and work great on rocky terrain like we have here in the South West.
I highly recommend the Rocco shock upgrade although the base Ario works well.

Yes...the Sin lived up to it's name...

 

[TWISTED]

The sin came after the 9.5 and is pretty much just a bastardization of it. Here's what happened to Sins when they came back to Mountain Cycle with broken headtubes sometime around 2005...

Go with the 9.5 if you want a big bike or a fury or something else similar if you want a smaller one

LOL! You got a great photo of my Sin hand truck Ryan. Yeah, probably the worlds trickest, most expensive hand truck. Notice the dual rear Progressive shocks? It manualled pretty good. Didn't someone crash it though?

Yes, this was the Mountain Cycle Sin test bike that was sent to Whistler for testing. The front section of that bike is seen taped and wred to the hand truck above.

As you can see, we obviously were very serious at Kinesis USA and never screwed around or had fun.:thumbsup:

 

[Ericmopar]

Well...we now know...that Tim is a great test rider, but not an engineer.

 

[MCsanandreas]

Well...we now know...that Tim is a great test rider, but not an engineer.

oh i dont know,what is wrong with sticky tape and wire?

 

[TWISTED]

Well...we now know...that Tim is a great test rider, but not an engineer.

How's that?

All Sin riders should also add duct tape and wire to their head tube / downtube junction to strengthen the frame.:thumbsup:

 

[Ericmopar]

How's that?

All Sin riders should also add duct tape and wire to their head tube / downtube junction to strengthen the frame.:thumbsup:

Yes...well...we now know you are a "good" engineer.

A great engineer however, would have remembered to add chewing gum...

 

[garth_marenghi]

About 4 years ago I was "lucky" enough to compare a Sin frame to the Shockwave.
Both frames were stripped aside from their rear shocks (both 5th elements with steel
springs) picking one frame up in each hand I was amazed at the difference in weight
between the two. The Sin obviously being much lighter.
I say lucky because that very same Sin frame distroyed itself the following week, whilst
I had taken the Shockwave option (I still have the Shockwave frame today and its bullet proof).

(The Sin in question failed spectacularly on the upper rear shock mount, the monocoque
literally crumpled around the mounting bolt - its now hanging on the wall in a friends garage.)
An expensive piece of modern art

So please purchase a Sin with extreme caution :nono:

 

[nickgto]

I was once a proud owner of 3 MC bikes : Shockwave 9.5, Sin, San Andreas DNA until the Sin then later the San Andreas DNA had monocoque frame failure at the junction where the shock attached to the main frame. The Sin lasted 2 months (realistically around 10 rides) of light AM riding while the DNA lasted longer (6 months). Both Sin and DNA had thin monocoque frames that crumple easily so try to avoid both.

Between the Fury and the Sin, the Fury would be the stronger bet but there is no replacement for the travel difference (7.5 v.s.5) specially if your looking for a mini DH bike that could pedal up. I ended up getting a Marin Quake to replace my Sin, while a BMC Superstroke replaced my DNA. I discovered that the short-parallel 4-bar / 4 bolt suspension linkage that suspends both my Marin and BMC had less pedal feedback, better small bump compliance, and superior rear braking performance than the single pivot suspended Sin and DNA.

My Previous all MC 3 Rig Line-up

My Current 3 Rig Line-up

 

[db840]

I love my Sin and it's more upright seating position. Huge amounts of fun bombing down hills. Lots of Sin owners have no problems. But you also mentioned climbing up trails and that might be your deciding point. With low and limited jumping like you said, they are probably both strong enough, so bike weight might be a factor for you. My Sin is 36.5 lbs vs 32 lbs for the Fury. My San Andreas is 31 lbs and those extra 5.5 lbs are noticeable near the end of a ride. Overall, and not knowing how you ride (I'm an ex-motocross racer who weighs 165 lbs myself and lands jumps softly using my knees to absorb shock-helps the Sin frame) go with a Fury. Much more versatile. And the frame is stronger.

 

[skellz]

whoooops ive just bought a sin... should be here next week.
i didnt know of the snapping problem till today..
i thought they was ok...
im only little.. just over 10 stone.. wish me luck

 

[dropmachine.com]

The snapping problem...well what can you do. I'd worry more about the completely **** angles and the terribly overstressed rear shock.

There are much better bikes out there for that type of riding. Its not a good example of what Mountain Cycle can do.

 

[skellz]

its ok.
the frame in question was allready cracked when it turned up.
got it from ebay 2nd hand. 1 sent it right back..
tiny hairline crack by the rear shock mount

staying with my fury for the moment.. will be buying my next one from MC

 

[Ericmopar]

It's frustrating, the Sin is an anomaly, from a company that has built outstanding products for the trail bike and big hit crowd.
It is however, the first thing that anti MC folks bring up.
Not all Sins have broken.
I do wish, that MC would bring out a new 6" bike. Sooner or later, I'm going to need one.

 

[MC9.5]

I do wish, that MC would bring out a new 6" bike. Sooner or later, I'm going to need one.

X2:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Hulkamaniac]

I had a pewter Sin back in 2004/2005 that I used for a little bit of everything, from dirt jumps to even a dh race bike when I was in between full moto mode and trying to decide if I wanted/could stay in dh racing. Honestly, the only thing I ever wanted with the Sin was a slacker head tube angle. For a majority of the local east coast (mid atlantic) races it was the perfect bike, as the smaller courses with tighter corners and lots of pedalling sections really played to what that bike did well. However, on bigger courses that turn the speeds up a few notches, things got a little out of control at times....but it was never meant to be that kind of bike, I was just using it for something beyond it's intended purpose.

I ride/race a 9.5 now and really like the bike, but on smaller mountains I often find myself wanting the Sin because of how I liked to make more out the mountain than the trail gave the rider. By that I mean, I'm always searching for small lips in the rock gardens or even small humps in a trail to launch off of, things to gap over, trying to find unique lines to spice up the trail......not that the 9.5 can't do that, cause you can certainly make it do that, but the Sin had a almost natural ability to be playful and was light enough to do whatever you wanted whenver you wanted to do it.

I beat the crap out of my Sin, I had a 66rc on it and literally rode it hard and put it away wet daily when I worked at Snowshoe Mountain in West Virginia. I beat on it and it just seems to come back for more every time. I've seen pics on the net of them broken, but mine just seemed to be solid....albeit a bit tight in the head angle, but I got used to that.