On a roll! - 2006 Fury - A Retrospective Review
thedktor
Posts: 234
I had mine for only six months but rode it quite a lot - several hours every week in all weathers.
The bike was faultlessly reliable but I do regularly check things like the infamous cranks!! (mine were never loose anyway).
Most of my riding is either Dorset coast on big FO hills with a bit of rocky stuff thrown in, or round my local forest - fast but some roots and logs.
The bike, though slightly too small as mentioned before, was very comfortable to ride for a hard-tail, with that plush Tora fork taking out the hits at the front and the rear damping-down trail buzz very well.
SRAM X-5 / X-7 gears worked reliably, as did the Tektro disks, but I always felt they needed more pressure than expected for hydraulics. They modulated perfectly though and were quiet, so overall no real complaint.
My only other issue was that the lockout on the forks still allowed a small amount of movement - 1/2 inch or so of bob when standing up.
So, why sell it? well, 2 reasons:
1/ my body just can't cope with bumps for any length of time off-road which is why I bought the full-sus Marin Rift Zone 10 years ago. Even the smoothest riding hardtail isn't a patch on a full-sus, I should have remembered....
2/ Going back even more years I had an Orange P7 then a Marin Titanium. The Fury felt rather flat and lifeless in comparison - it just didn't have that zippy springy feel that a high end bike/frame can give. Once you've tasted the best it doesn't always work down-grading.
The end of last year I got a base-model 2007 Rockhopper. The frame on this is identical to that used on the œ950 Pro model, and is virtually the same as the Stumpjumper race-ready range i.e. its top-quality.
It saves a couple of pounds over the Fury, and though my base model is not as light as the higher models it does have that certain feel about it that makes you want to stomp hard on the pedals and go for it - that zippy feel that was lacking in the Fury. The Fury's characteristics not helped by its less than solid fork lockout.
Of course the Rockhopper is a more expensive bike (well only œ50 for me) and it doesn't have disks, but it looks expensive in tasteful black, and I love riding it for short bursts and/or on the road.
The Fury was more a means to travel, in comfort, rather than to provide excitement. However, before Fury owners start protesting I am pretty sure that the tyres and perhaps the wheels as well were quite heavy and if changed would make the bike a lot more lively to ride.
I notice in the latest mag test that this year's model has different tyres, and, came out top of the test. Also its now black which looks much better - maybe its an age thing but last years model's pink bits just seemed a bit too effeminate for my liking lol !
For the œ400 I paid it was a lot of bike for the money, and if you are going up from a cheaper bike you will love it. Just don't expect it to ride, or look, like a œ1000 bike, cos, well, it isn't !
Of course the other dilema is that at œ500 its too close to (for example) the Rockhopper, which you could easily haggle down to the same price. You miss out on disks with the Specialized but as a longer-term upgrade project you're starting with a top-notch frame, and can get some better disks than the Fury's Tektros.
TD
The bike was faultlessly reliable but I do regularly check things like the infamous cranks!! (mine were never loose anyway).
Most of my riding is either Dorset coast on big FO hills with a bit of rocky stuff thrown in, or round my local forest - fast but some roots and logs.
The bike, though slightly too small as mentioned before, was very comfortable to ride for a hard-tail, with that plush Tora fork taking out the hits at the front and the rear damping-down trail buzz very well.
SRAM X-5 / X-7 gears worked reliably, as did the Tektro disks, but I always felt they needed more pressure than expected for hydraulics. They modulated perfectly though and were quiet, so overall no real complaint.
My only other issue was that the lockout on the forks still allowed a small amount of movement - 1/2 inch or so of bob when standing up.
So, why sell it? well, 2 reasons:
1/ my body just can't cope with bumps for any length of time off-road which is why I bought the full-sus Marin Rift Zone 10 years ago. Even the smoothest riding hardtail isn't a patch on a full-sus, I should have remembered....
2/ Going back even more years I had an Orange P7 then a Marin Titanium. The Fury felt rather flat and lifeless in comparison - it just didn't have that zippy springy feel that a high end bike/frame can give. Once you've tasted the best it doesn't always work down-grading.
The end of last year I got a base-model 2007 Rockhopper. The frame on this is identical to that used on the œ950 Pro model, and is virtually the same as the Stumpjumper race-ready range i.e. its top-quality.
It saves a couple of pounds over the Fury, and though my base model is not as light as the higher models it does have that certain feel about it that makes you want to stomp hard on the pedals and go for it - that zippy feel that was lacking in the Fury. The Fury's characteristics not helped by its less than solid fork lockout.
Of course the Rockhopper is a more expensive bike (well only œ50 for me) and it doesn't have disks, but it looks expensive in tasteful black, and I love riding it for short bursts and/or on the road.
The Fury was more a means to travel, in comfort, rather than to provide excitement. However, before Fury owners start protesting I am pretty sure that the tyres and perhaps the wheels as well were quite heavy and if changed would make the bike a lot more lively to ride.
I notice in the latest mag test that this year's model has different tyres, and, came out top of the test. Also its now black which looks much better - maybe its an age thing but last years model's pink bits just seemed a bit too effeminate for my liking lol !
For the œ400 I paid it was a lot of bike for the money, and if you are going up from a cheaper bike you will love it. Just don't expect it to ride, or look, like a œ1000 bike, cos, well, it isn't !
Of course the other dilema is that at œ500 its too close to (for example) the Rockhopper, which you could easily haggle down to the same price. You miss out on disks with the Specialized but as a longer-term upgrade project you're starting with a top-notch frame, and can get some better disks than the Fury's Tektros.
TD
0
Comments
-
The Tora is not meant to fully lock out - its designed for a little travel to aid traction. I think its fair to say a Ti or steel frame generally rides a little smoother than a alu one!
<center><font size="1"><font color="red">GT Zaskar LE</font id="red">
<font color="red">GT Ruckus</font id="red">
<font color="red">Me!</font id="red">
<font color="purple">MYSPACE</font id="purple"><hr noshade size="1"><font color="red">Park Tools - help and instructions for all general bike fixes</font id="red">
<font color="red">Sheldon Brown - info about anything and everything</font id="red"></font id="size1"></center>0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by supersonic</i>
The Tora is not meant to fully lock out - its designed for a little travel to aid traction. I think its fair to say a Ti or steel frame generally rides a little smoother than a alu one!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK, but the Tora on my Rockhopper locks out pretty much completely which feels much better when stood up.
Also, the Fury rode at least as smoothly as the Ti and steel bikes I mentioned, but I suspect the tyres have something to do with it as well as frames just do not flex more than a millimetre or 2 in a vertical direction.
TD0
