2012 stumpjumper 26 vs 2014 Fuel Ex 7 29er
jamesbaa
Posts: 8
trying to replace my much loved Trek fuel EX7 after it was stolen a week ago.
can anybody make sense of the geometry for both bikes for me? I used to have a 18.5 virtual 17.5 actual. how would that compare to a large 2012 stumpjumper? I fitted a 50mm head stem to the trek to reduce the reach which improved it massively, I test rode the large stumpy today and it felt very similar to the trek but it was only briefly round a car park.
can anybody make sense of the geometry for both bikes for me? I used to have a 18.5 virtual 17.5 actual. how would that compare to a large 2012 stumpjumper? I fitted a 50mm head stem to the trek to reduce the reach which improved it massively, I test rode the large stumpy today and it felt very similar to the trek but it was only briefly round a car park.
0
Comments
-
Its the reach and stack that counts for more than the most meaningless dimension they could have used for a bike size, if you can't get those work from headtube length and effective top tube.Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0
