Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I broke a brake lever on my cascade peak and have been waiting for a new part - I just received a new xt brake set from Brand's cycles and will be back on the Fezzazri this weekend.

In the meantime, I rode my older 26" Spec FSRXC. I didn't like the difference a lot but I was happy to have bike two. Here are two thoughts on the old (Spec FSRXC) vs the new (Fezzari Cascade Peak):

1. Geometry: The fezzari is a newer design with a slacker frame, the Spec is a classic 26er with steep geometry. When I got back on the Spec, it felt unstable and I felt cramped and too far over the bars, especially on steep downhills. Perhaps I'd get used to this older geometry again with time, but I'm clearly sold on the newer slacker bike.

2. Tires: The Fezzari has 27.5 x 2.8 tires, the spec has 26 x 2.0 tires. Riding the spec on my exercise route, I have to cross the tracks twice and have to ride a few hundred feet down the ballast to do so. The ballast is casual on the Fezzari but is very squirrelly on the smaller tires. I've noted the same thing on gravel, baby heads, sand, mud, and off trail wandering. The bigger tires and wheels are, of course, heavier but the advantages outweigh the weight for me.

I know that preferences vary widely and I'm not trying to get a flame war going, just giving my observations. I ride a lot on wild lands versus bike parks and trail systems so others may well have other opinions based on their own experiences and riding techniques.

So, I'm fat and slack, how about you?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,949 Posts
I’d never go back to the old, stupid road-bike-inspired geometry. You’re not crazy— those old bikes really did suck.

That said, some of my bikes in the early 2000s were fairly slack, with short stems, and handled steep terrain just fine. They had relatively short reaches though and had slack seat angles which made them suck for climbing.

They finally have the whole package figured out — you can climb with a very slack head angle just fine if you increase reach and then steepen the seat angle.

Tires— yep, I’ll take modern tires too. 2.5s are just right for me. Some of my old 2.1 XC tires had virtually no traction whatsoever in wet conditions. ‘Twas like taking your life in your hands riding wet roots and rocks.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
776 Posts
Bike 2 for me is an early 90s Cannondale with Headshock. The lack of a rear suspension meant that I'd regularly break spokes.

It can't possibly compare with my cross-country 29er on my regular trails, but with 2.3" slicks, that old bike absolutely kicks a55 on the gravel.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,017 Posts
I’d never go back to the old, stupid road-bike-inspired geometry. You’re not crazy— those old bikes really did suck.
raises glass

If for nothing other than better fit via longer HTT, errr, I mean reach. I'm tall and always found everything I rode felt short. Short both in terms of length and height. At least now it's more common to find taller headtubes. The longer wheelbase is where it's at for me. No more feeling like I'm gonna go otb on something like a 2% grade.

I threw a leg over an "oldie" last week. Yeah, that'll just hang from the wall as a reminder now. I'm really happy with my stable now. High volume tires, tall headtubes, thru axles ... only skewers I use now are for shishkabobs.

Ex weight weenie here, too. I measure my 30-pound bikes with a bathroom scale and laugh now.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,022 Posts
The FSR is a pretty old bike. Even bikes from 2015 is a huge departure from 2010 and older bikes. I have a Pivot Mach 5 from 2010. The bike is a 140mm travel bike with a 69 degree head tube angle and a seat tube so long that I can't even get a 100mm dropper in there. On top of the steep HTA...the bike also set the rider up high on the bike...it gives you that feeling your going to go OTB. It came with a 90mm stem and a sub 700mm bar.
 

· Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
41,618 Posts
Some of us knew from the get-go that 2.0 tires were just ridiculous. Maybe my very first set was 2.0, but after that, I was going at least 2.25 and it wasn't long before I was buying the Tioga DH tires, 2.35, but really more like 2.5. If you rode aggressively, you needed more tire. This never changed through the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cookieMonster
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top