Genesis Fortitude Range 29er

fergo

Wondered if anyone has one of the bikes from the Genesis Fortitude range....

http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/bikes/mou ... adventure/

Wondered what everyones thoughts on them are, especially SS model? Intrigued by 29 wheels and rigid fork combo, looks a good fun bike to blast through the trails!

Thanks

cooldad

SS - no
Rigid - no
29er - maybe.

So overall - no.

Unless you have a long beard and wear sandals.

supersonic

The prices are ridiculous. Really aren't getting much for the cash there.

YeehaaMcgee

What on hell's earth is that thing meant to BE?

fergo

supersonic wrote:

The prices are ridiculous. Really aren't getting much for the cash there.

Defo seems ££££ for a 'simple' bike, not sure the wrists would stand up to a battering either with no suspension!

YeehaaMcgee

there's really no need to put "simple" in quotation marks - it really IS a simple bike, with no bells or whistles.

supersonic

I have really liked the Genesis range, some very well thought out parts. This though...

big_southern_jesse

Okay, as an honourary beard and sandal wearer, I would say a 29", SS, rigid bike can be great, if it is actually what you want and suits your riding.

But you pay through the nose for the frame and wheels compared to 26" so think carefully or try some, unless of course you have hod loads of dosh. I am 6'5", so I get a bike that is a bit more in proportion. For the dirt and dust trails around here, I can get away without suspension, especially as the bigger wheels and tyres give a little more spring, as do carbon forks and steel frame. And by having a lighter bike by doing away with suspension and gears, I can ride most of the hills in a reasonable gear.

But it suits me and where I ride. I took it to Wales, to Brechfa Forest, and had a wonderful time, but I was only doing Green and Blue routes. Anything steeper and I really would have had to drop my gearing, which then would have made the flats very slow indeed. And certain trail features, like rock gardens or northshore made from round logs are awful, blurred vision, bruised palms etc.

There are plenty of hardtail 26" (a boardman for example) that for the same sort of money will do almost everything very well indeed. I love riding my bike, but it does impose limits. If you are happy with those, and you want one, then go for it, it's your choice, whatever people say.

As to the bike you linked to... Well, there are certainly better choices value for money wise out there at the moment. Not sure of the market now, but a couple of years ago you could have had a similar frame, carbon forks, better wheels and definitely better brakes for that sort of money. In fact, if you have a few spares about the place, you could put together a full carbon rig from On One.

the Genesis a few years ago had a few lovely SS frames, the spec seems a bit dodgy now though.. Have a look around, I would prefer this for the same money...

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/kon ... e#features

fergo

Big Southern Jesse wrote:

Okay, as an honourary beard and sandal wearer, I would say a 29", SS, rigid bike can be great, if it is actually what you want and suits your riding.

But you pay through the nose for the frame and wheels compared to 26" so think carefully or try some, unless of course you have hod loads of dosh. I am 6'5", so I get a bike that is a bit more in proportion. For the dirt and dust trails around here, I can get away without suspension, especially as the bigger wheels and tyres give a little more spring, as do carbon forks and steel frame. And by having a lighter bike by doing away with suspension and gears, I can ride most of the hills in a reasonable gear.

But it suits me and where I ride. I took it to Wales, to Brechfa Forest, and had a wonderful time, but I was only doing Green and Blue routes. Anything steeper and I really would have had to drop my gearing, which then would have made the flats very slow indeed. And certain trail features, like rock gardens or northshore made from round logs are awful, blurred vision, bruised palms etc.

There are plenty of hardtail 26" (a boardman for example) that for the same sort of money will do almost everything very well indeed. I love riding my bike, but it does impose limits. If you are happy with those, and you want one, then go for it, it's your choice, whatever people say.

As to the bike you linked to... Well, there are certainly better choices value for money wise out there at the moment. Not sure of the market now, but a couple of years ago you could have had a similar frame, carbon forks, better wheels and definitely better brakes for that sort of money. In fact, if you have a few spares about the place, you could put together a full carbon rig from On One.

the Genesis a few years ago had a few lovely SS frames, the spec seems a bit dodgy now though.. Have a look around, I would prefer this for the same money...

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/kon ... e#features

Cheers for that reply, some useful info for me.

Having done some research on rigid, SS 29ers im starting to like the idea of one. Im 6'4 so 29er wheels would be more in scale to my height and also I like the idea of it suiting my type of riding - mainly XC, woods and canal paths. Ive seen the Genesis SS 29er for £680 on the web also.

Still plenty to consider though and more research to be done!

Thanks again

YeehaaMcgee

Rider height has no bearing on wheel size.
For example, a normal road bike wheel (700c) is to all intents and purposes, incredibly close in terms of size, to a mountain bike 26" wheel when you take the tyre diameter into consideration. Yet, people over 6 foot manage just fine on road bikes (and normal mountain bikes).
Not only that, but short riders also cope just fine with road bikes, and even on 29er mountain bikes.
The rider height thing is just nonsense, frankly.

big_southern_jesse

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Rider height has no bearing on wheel size.
For example, a normal road bike wheel (700c) is to all intents and purposes, incredibly close in terms of size, to a mountain bike 26" wheel when you take the tyre diameter into consideration. Yet, people over 6 foot manage just fine on road bikes (and normal mountain bikes).
Not only that, but short riders also cope just fine with road bikes, and even on 29er mountain bikes.
The rider height thing is just nonsense, frankly.

Yeah, everyone copes fine, that is true... So you would be okay with BMX 16" wheels next time you go off road? Not really keen to go over the discussions that have been done to death. My old bike was a 23.3" frame, and with 26" wheels, looked pretty ridiculous. The head tube was so long that buying forks was difficult, generally a mess.

Surely we arrived at 26" wheels because it was most suitable for the average rider? So add 10% to the size of the rider, and the frame, you may as well add 10% to the wheels too. Otherwise you end up on a Brompton.

Perhaps I just bought a frame that is suited to my body shape and favoured riding position? My impression is that the whole thing feels more balanced. Anyway, was only offering a bit of advice to someone who asked...

YeehaaMcgee

Big Southern Jesse wrote:

Yeah, everyone copes fine, that is true... So you would be okay with BMX 16" wheels next time you go off road?

:roll:
If I had a BMX, I'd go for one with BMX sized wheels, which are 20", as it happens.
Are you suggesting that because you're taller, that 26" wheels don't cover rough ground as well as they do for someone who's abotu 5'10"?

fergo

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Rider height has no bearing on wheel size.
For example, a normal road bike wheel (700c) is to all intents and purposes, incredibly close in terms of size, to a mountain bike 26" wheel when you take the tyre diameter into consideration. Yet, people over 6 foot manage just fine on road bikes (and normal mountain bikes).
Not only that, but short riders also cope just fine with road bikes, and even on 29er mountain bikes.
The rider height thing is just nonsense, frankly.

This review seems to disagree....
http://www.realcycles.co.uk/files/d2613 ... ef-38.html

cooldad

That review is the blog of a person that sells them.

fergo

cooldad wrote:

That review is the blog of a person that sells them.

Yes it is, but it is good to see someones different opinion who has actually ridden the bike...

supersonic

If you are at the extreme of the height range we commonly see, then yes, it can be of an advantage to opt for smaller (or larger wheels) to get a better fit. But for the vast majority, 24, 26, 27.5 and 29 will fit fine. I think the guy is overplaying it, he is not that tall at 4 inches above the national average, and he doesn't mention his reach nor inside leg.

YeehaaMcgee

I wonder how long before lanky roadies start screaming for larger wheels.

ddraver

To be fair, smaller roadies have been clamouring for smaller wheeels for some time. There just are nt many of them....

To the OP - Stock answer to any "which bike" Question is go and ride one and see what you like...