Long back story rant here, could skip if you want: I am 21 and just getting back into riding after 3 years of chemo and a total hip replacement. It sounds worse than it is, my hip is like new; with the muscle and balance loss, and being out of shape being the only difference between 18 year old me and now. Well, except I am maybe more cautious from a stage 4 destruction of my teenage sense of invincibility lol. I tried to stay active during treatment and I am currently 5'8 / 5'9 @ 140-145 lbs. 

When I say getting back into riding, I mean that lightly. I was never really "in-shape" cardio wise, I just rode north meck, fisher farm etc every other weekend or so with my grandpa during the summers since I was a young teen. I skateboarded (and bmx'ed) all day everyday from about 13-16 and my legs and balance were incredible. I skated more, but I was better at bmx than skating. I could air over 4ft handrails by popping off a 2x4 on the ground. However when it came to the trails, I could never keep up without getting winded. I was riding a crappy ironhorse 26' HT of course, but it bothered my inflated ego that my 55 year old grandpa and my leg muscles could go non stop, while my lungs couldn't keep up. Those muscles are long gone anyway, so I'll stop the rant and get to the point.

Fast forward to now:

I want to know your personal opinions and suggestions about some of the bikes I want to check out. I want to try and find something used but only a couple years old at most. I want to go for a FS because of my hip, my increasing age, and if I get anywhere close to where I use to be, I will damn sure use it on jump lines.

I know I am at the mercy of what I find, but I have some model specific questions based on how I ride and my background. Obviously I will want to demo them if possible before the personal decision, but I just want to hear what you all have experienced. 

I just rode for the first time in years, at north meck this weekend. I was using my stepdads old 2011 Trek Rumblefish (non carbon, xt components). This was my first 29er ride, and it is unfortunately sized at 19.5 (Thinking I'd be 17.5?) so I feel I didn't get a good baseline. Anyway, It felt a lot like a tank. 

First of all, compared to my old 26 ht days, the 29 was way better as far as roots and downhill. N meck is pretty root-y, so my ass definitely appreciated it. I also liked that when I came to the creek crossing I was able to easily creep down the steep drop instead of pulling back and "airing" down it like I would have done on a 26. I'm so out of shape to compare the climbing but while the bike seemed heavier and "sloppy", I'm pretty sure it would have required more energy on the HT considering the roots.

What I did not like at all, and what I hope can be blamed on either the mis-sized bike or my 3 year hiatus- is how impossible it was to air! (do you guys call it a huck?).
I tried my absolute hardest to gap that first jump (step down) right after you enter north meck on the pump track side. I had plenty of speed, and was trying to land on the down slope. I couldn't even pull the front wheel up far enough to tuck.  I landed at the crest of the downhill. It was smooth as butter as far as impact, but beyond boring. If I hit the same thing, at the same speed on a 26 HT, I would have easily made it, maybe even gone to flat. The bars were really wide and to far away which I feel could have had a lot to do with it, but I will still very disappointed. My favorite thing to do by far is jumping, and while I am reserving 29er judgement once I demo a properly sized bike; my experience this weekend has me thinking of trying a 27.5. I am really hoping there is a fs 29er out there that I can sling around, since the extra rollover, comfort and speed was really really nice. Maybe shorter bars?

Another minor complaint was how the 29er handled the low speed tight sections as far as agility goes. It was remarkably smoother and more enjoyable than I remember on the 26 HT, but with the wide bars, close trees, and my worn out ass using granny gears it got a little sketchy sometimes. I am not really factoring this into my decision though since in my opinion, I shouldn't have been going so slow anyway. I'll take the trade for the downhill stability. 

That being said, I am torn between the bikes below, and have some questions about them. My stepdad has always liked trek, and just upgraded to a P1 fuel ex 9. They are sized 19 or 19.5 or whatever, so while I can't get a proper feel- they are a little too bulky to me. As in, geometry wise, I'd trade some of that stability for snappier handling. Still 29er handling of course, but something snappier none the less, without sacrificing travel. Or sacrificing rollover with a 27.5.

The guy at the Trek store at northlake (great guy), said that Specialized makes good stuff and are all around more aggressive in design. I have not checked out a specialized dealer around here yet, but 2 of the bikes really interest me. I am also a sucker for looks, and much much prefer the looks of the speesh's. It all cosmetic sure, but when you are dropping this much on a bike you might as well get what you want, right? 
 
Anyway, I am interested in the Camber Comp carbon and Stuntjumper FSR Comp carbon. Since I am buying used, I want to point out that I (think) the Camber was 110/110mm travel in the past, while the Camber comp EVO was 120/120mm. I think it was this year or last year that they went to the EVO geometry & 120/120mm for the camber comp and up. Also, I believe they changed the Stumpy to EVO geometry as well, but I am not sure if the travel changed. I believe it is 135mm now? If someone could clear all of this up I would appreciate it. Also your opinion on the old geometry vs the new based on what I want to do.


I see the stuntjumper everywhere, and it seems alot of people really like it. My question is, with 135mm of travel, why is it compared online to the fuel ex with 120mm all the time? The fuel ex and the Stumpy are really common, but shouldn't the fuel ex compare better to the camber comp? and the stumpy better compare to the Trek Remedy? I just think it is weird that at N meck this weekend I saw 2 Stumpys and 3 fuel EXs, and never saw a camber or a remedy. 

Is there something really figured out with the Stumpy? Because the new fuel EX I rode with 120/120 was plenty smooth over all the roots. So it seems to me the Camber Comp with the same travel would be apples to oranges. Everything I read though says the camber is more XC oriented, and that the Stumpy climbs just as good so might as well go for the stumpy. That's a &^&^load of travel though? I didn't get to air the fuel EX so I don't know if I'll need the extra travel when I get to jumping like I want to, but I really don't want anything clunkier than that Rumblefish. 

I am going to bike source next weekend to check them both out but I'd like to know what you think would be a better fit for what I want to do. Especially since I am buying used and the geometry has recently changed. Thanks,

SirNotAppearing wrote on 02/01/16 at 6:04pm:



Thanks man! and I'll keep that in mind. Glad to hear the rumble wasn't a good representation.

FredRubble wrote on 02/01/16 at 9:56pm:

Thanks!  We have three demo bikes that may interest you and your riding style.

Transition Smuggler 29er
Camber Comp 29er 
SJ FSR Expert Carbon 650b/27.5

We have all three in Medium which is what you should be riding.  I can see where you trying to ride a 19.5/Large  would make it difficult to jump.  You are right about the 2016 Camber.  It is 120mm F and R.  The Smuggler is 115mm rear and 130mm front.  The SJ FSR 650b is 150mm F and R.   

All three are awesome bikes!  Come check us out when you get time!

And glad to hear you're recovering well!

Mark

The wife had a 2011/2012 rumblefish... it was the biggest POS i have ever had the displeasure to own.  Absolute junk...  I ended up running it over in the WWC parking lot after a few too many post ride brews.... but I digress...

Current bike is a brandy new Transition Smuggler...  It's a pretty awesome bike and she loves it.