All IMO - Between those two I'd look at the Rocky. I am just not sold on the flexing rear triangle thing. I'm a slave to a rear pivot. Might also help that I'm currently riding a Rocky dually, and liking it alot too. The Rocky's are all being spec'd with 100mm forks now, so lots of room to make it steer faster if you want - slap on a 80mm fork. That thing will be even a better woods bike. At least worked on mine.pdxbiker said:I'm looking into getting a XC FS Frame to replace one of my hardtails. What are the plus and minus of either of these frames? I don't ride super technical trails and don't need alot of travel. Any other XC FS Frames you would recommend?
Fuels do have pivots. I think maybe the original ones didn't...JmZ said:All IMO - Between those two I'd look at the Rocky. I am just not sold on the flexing rear triangle thing.
Not quite. The Fuel suspensions are the same now as the originals....just the materials have changed. Fuels are a modified 4-bar where the 4th pivot is replaced by stays that are designed to flex (very small movement and only near full travel). It works well. The Element is a 4-bar using a seat stay pivot. Both bike's suspensions act like a single pivot....the Element a little more than the Fuel.prlundberg said:Fuels do have pivots. I think maybe the original ones didn't...
Like JmZ said, go out and ride them. There are so many different designs that it would be impossible to know what you will like best without some long test rides.
I have a Fuel 90, so I can tell you the pluses of the Fuel, IMO, are it's responsiveness and efficient pedaling. It's great for XC, and exactly what I was looking for. The ride is on the harsh side though.