Gary Fisher, the Fraud

[Dr. Guitar]

I just wanted to get your attention with the titile. I don't think he's a fraud.

What I do think is that the "Genisis geomitry" is a load of bunk. Well not bunk. GF did not start any big revalation in geomitry.

I was oggling (Sp) my bike porn (cataloges) and noticed something. I have been comparing the GF Big Sur, and the Klien Attatude. Well, if start checking out where parts of the bike overlap in the picture, you notice similarities. What I saw was the both the Klien and GF's rear wheels underlap the big chain ring. Why? Short chainstays. I did a comparison in the geomitry section of each cataloge, and did not find much that was different. Unless you consider a mm here or there to be some dramatic difference.

So, my point is to bring this to everyones attention, and to ask who was first with this design? Is GF blowing their horn about something someone else has allready been doing?

Just the fact that Klien puts more in to the making of their stuff, makes me give them credit on this point.

[jkalla]

For what its worth - Genesis geometry is post TREK buyout of Gary Fisher. The Klein geometry is pre TREK buyout. The GF biikes generally are stocked with shorter stems than the Klein bikes. Actually it is a pretty lame innovation for anyone to fight over the rights of discovery. There is a huge variation in frame geometry from manufacturer to manufacturer. Cannondale changed their sizing a few years back and they didn't claim that they were revolutionizing mountain biking.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Dr. Guitar
I just wanted to get your attention with the titile. I don't think he's a fraud.

What I do think is that the "Genisis geomitry" is a load of bunk. Well not bunk. GF did not start any big revalation in geomitry.

I was oggling (Sp) my bike porn (cataloges) and noticed something. I have been comparing the GF Big Sur, and the Klien Attatude. Well, if start checking out where parts of the bike overlap in the picture, you notice similarities. What I saw was the both the Klien and GF's rear wheels underlap the big chain ring. Why? Short chainstays. I did a comparison in the geomitry section of each cataloge, and did not find much that was different. Unless you consider a mm here or there to be some dramatic difference.

So, my point is to bring this to everyones attention, and to ask who was first with this design? Is GF blowing their horn about something someone else has allready been doing?

Just the fact that Klien puts more in to the making of their stuff, makes me give them credit on this point.

Even though both brands are owned by Trek don't forget that Klein reworked the Attitude's geomety this year-now called Palomino...I haven't spent enough time checking it out but I'm sure it's as kicka** as my Attitude

[martini]

Ironically enough, the genesis Geo is too short for me(need a longer stem), and the BB is waaaay to low. I smack cranks all the time when I ride Fishers. Same thing with the Klien's I've ridden. Too short and, this is where the difference lies, too tall. The head tubes on Klien's are pretty big, sitting up. There's nothing wrong with that, its the way my WTB is designed, but the balance points are quite(positioning) are quite different.

I rode the Palomino and though it was a kick ass bike. I loved the rear suspension, but the rest of the bike just didn't quite work for me. I've also ridden the Maverick ML-7 that the Palomino is based on, and man-o-man, that bike kicked a$$! Now if only it was made ina 29" version, and affordable ($2700 frame only!)

[manitouman84]

There is a point to genisis geometry, shorter seat stays and stem, with a longer top and down tube. It gives you better steering control and puts you further behind the front wheel. There is reasonable thinking behind Gary's frame geometry, the design works. Whether you like it or not is up to you.

Trek owns gary fisher, but I heard Giant owns trek, this true?

[martini]

No Trek is not owned by Giant. Giant may make some of the low low end Treks, that's all. Giant, in fact, owns no other bike Co's than themselves. They DO however, makes lots of frames for other companies.

[shep]

Someone mentioned bike porn (catalogues). I need me some of that. What are the names of the companies that send them out. Obviously, I haven't been riding all that long (1 year).

[Kingbozo]

Performance (performancebike.com)

Jenson USA

Nashbar

Pricepoint

Colorado Cyclist

[manual63]

Gary Fisher came out with Genisis Geometry back in '98 from what I remember. Most bikes had shorter frames with long stems at the time. Since the design has been a success, more and more bike companies are slowing gravitating towards the shorter chainstay, longer top tube, and shorter stem design. It only makes better sense. The body position is the same and the bike handles much better. Being that I come from a BMX backgound, I like the design a lot. Mountain bikes have always handled funky (more of a road bike geometry) and it's about time they design them for more agressive handling.

I had a '94 Kona and it was the best handling bike for me at the time. I think Kona might have started the more agressive handling trend, but GF just went all out with the Genisis Geometry and I think they did it right.

[martini]

Originally posted by manual63
I had a '94 Kona and it was the best handling bike for me at the time. I think Kona might have started the more agressive handling trend, but GF just went all out with the Genisis Geometry and I think they did it right.

I've had a few Kona's in my day too. I must agree with the handling bit as well. There must be something in that BC/Washington water, cause each of those bike handled telepathically. Spot on for everything. EVERYTHING. I love them love them love them. So much so that I found one super cheap and am getting it. I know, I've said no more 26"er's, but for Kona, and the price I'm getting, I can't turn it down. Getting a Kona Unit SS soon. Gotta repaint it though, it's pretty beat up. Can't wait! It'll primarily be a commuter I can beat on.

[Dr. Guitar]

I hear what everyone is saying, but I'm not sure if I got my point across.

From what I personaly have observed, I am wondering if the Genisis geomitry is all hot air. If Klien (and posibly others) has been making bikes with a simillar geomitry, and not hyping it, why would GF do so on a later date. And YAWN to the idea that putting a short stem on a bike out of the box being a break through in design.

As far as Trek buying out other companies, I say fine. Trek is awesome, and so are the companies it keeps afloat. However... Trek? Please bring back the bonded aluminum frame!

[manitouman84]

ahh i see what you are saying now, yeah maybe they did blow "genisis geometry" out of proportion, but they definately arent the first company to slap a fancy pants name on something thats not all too special.

I dont know about trek being awesome though.... but maybe its subsidiaries, such as fisher.

[manual63]

Originally posted by Dr. Guitar
I hear what everyone is saying, but I'm not sure if I got my point across.

From what I personaly have observed, I am wondering if the Genisis geomitry is all hot air. If Klien (and posibly others) has been making bikes with a simillar geomitry, and not hyping it, why would GF do so on a later date. And YAWN to the idea that putting a short stem on a bike out of the box being a break through in design.

As far as Trek buying out other companies, I say fine. Trek is awesome, and so are the companies it keeps afloat. However... Trek? Please bring back the bonded aluminum frame!

Out of all the mass produced brands, GF was the first to do it to the extreme (freakin' word) they have. Like I said in my earlier posts. Kona started the lower top tube trend way back in the late 80's. Kona also made quicker and better handling bikes when most companies where slapping fat tires on road bike frames with road bike geometry. There were some smaller rider owned companies that were probably doing a thing similar to the Genisis Geometry, but GF is the first to promote the idea in the late 90's. The next year or so, Specialized came out with a new geometry to try to match it, but not as extreme (the word from hell) as the Genisis Geometry. Now I see a lot of bikes with similar geometry now, but they all started following the Genisis Geometry trend Gary Fisher started, which is a good one to follow.

[jkalla]

I remember that when the Genesis geometry was introduced the frame dimensions were not available either published in their catalogue or on their website. I believe that the reason is that they were not that different than some of the other frames being produced by other bike manufacturers. They did however market their new geometry more than the other bike manufacturers did.

[Kingbozo]

but not as extreme (the word from hell)

Try "pronounced" :p

[manual63]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
Try "pronounced" :p

<b>Synonyms</b> extremist, fanatic, rabid, radical, revolutional, revolutionary, revolutionist, ultra, ultraist, outlandish
<b>Related Words</b> excessive, immoderate; desperate, drastic; extravagant, unreasonable; violent, wild

Or I could just use one of these that apply......:p.

[manual63]

One thing for sure, the new trend in Geometry makes me like mountain biking again. I had a Specialized S-Works from like '94 that I started racing cross country on. It was light and had great Suntour parts, but man, it had a stem a mile long and a super short frame. Every time I jumped it, it would nose dive into the ground. I was like, "geeeeez!", I would be better off with a road bike and only using my BMX bike for off road adventures. Then I met my friend John Palmersheim in San Francisco one year. He had a GT Zaskar set up with a short downhill stem, Azonic I believe, and some riser bars. It rode sweet!

After that adventure, I came home, got a Kona and put a shorter stem with Club Roost rise bars on it. That bike ruled!

Ever since I got into mountain biking back in '87 I have begged for better geometry. Even though Gary Fisher might not have been the first, they certainly set the standard for which most companies make bike frames now.

[GearDaddy]

As far as the Genesis geometry being "hot air", well it certainly is from the perspective of it being a new idea. The idea wasn't new at all. As far as whether it works well, that's another story. I've heard a lot of people who say they really like it. Can't argue with that. But ultimately, any geometry has tradeoffs.

I am a Kona owner, and I definitely picked up on the nimble handling character of the bike, which I like better than the Genesis geometry. So, that's just me. Occasionally, I ride on an older Bontrager MB-2, which pre-dates the industry wide change to longer, more "stretched out" geometries in todays bikes. I'll tell you though, that Bontrager is a great climber, and extremely nimble in tight singletrack, at the expense of a more stable feel on downhills. It's really up to you to decide what works.

[martini]

Originally posted by GearDaddy
I am a Kona owner, and I definitely picked up on the nimble handling character of the bike, which I like better than the Genesis geometry. So, that's just me. Occasionally, I ride on an older Bontrager MB-2, which pre-dates the industry wide change to longer, more "stretched out" geometries in todays bikes. I'll tell you though, that Bontrager is a great climber, and extremely nimble in tight singletrack, at the expense of a more stable feel on downhills. It's really up to you to decide what works.

Huh? Do you mean Bridgestone or Bontager? Which ever it is, I totally concur though! Both B-brands are single track fiends that ride amazingly well. I know because I've owned a couple of each in my time in this sport. Like Shad said though, once the trail pointed steeply down, both bikes were, ummm, uncomfortable to be on, especailly with flat bars. With risers, they were better, but still a bit twitchy.

[finnlander]

I agree that the Genesis geometry is overplayed, but thats the marketing people at work if you ask me. Everything has got to have a cool name or some initials tacked on to or its crap in their world. Overall, I think Fishers tend to fit better than a lot of bikes. I just got a xl frame sugar and its the first bike I've had that I don't want to change the stem and bars on.

Another thing I admire about GF is that with the 29" wheel he trying to sell something he thinks is better from his own experience. I can guess it isn't too popular with the marketing or manufacturing people because its got to add cost to building the bikes and they aren't selling like hotcakes. Bike shops also seem reluctant to recommend them because they don't want to stock more stuff.

I would love to find an original large Bontrager or Breezer frame - I've always thought they we're the best handling bikes I tried.

[GearDaddy]

Oop - brain fart. I meant Bridgestone, not Bontrager.

My first MTB was an 87 Bianchi Allante, with rigid fork, U-brake, thumb shifters, downtube routed cabling, and probably weighing in at 28 lbs. I rode that thing for 3 or 4 years, including many trips around Rock Lake in Wisconsin. It also had a 28T for a granny gear, which was the standard. It had more of the road-bike geometry like the Bridgestones, and I must say I never had an issue with feeling uncomfortable on steep downhills. Rather, I had more of an issue with how it handled at high speeds.

I remember the first year that Hyland ski area in Bloomington had an MTB trail. It was actually pretty killer, climbing the entire elevation twice in a single 1 1/2 mile loop. I struggled on the steeper sections with that 28T granny. It was then that I decided to finally get a new bike, and what a difference it was. Granny gears were now standard at 24T or 22T and the geometry of bikes had changed radically. Since the mid 90's I don't think there has been near so much change in geometries. The Genesis geometry was really a miniscule change for its time, relatively speaking.

[martini]

Originally posted by finnlander

Another thing I admire about GF is that with the 29" wheel he trying to sell something he thinks is better from his own experience. I can guess it isn't too popular with the marketing or manufacturing people because its got to add cost to building the bikes and they aren't selling like hotcakes. Bike shops also seem reluctant to recommend them because they don't want to stock more stuff.

Actually, if you go to the right shops, they're well stocked, AND they are selling quite well. Well enough that they've been out of stock for the last moth or so. Can't get any more '03's, you have to wait for '04's. They're catching on, and now that the UCI has leagalized them for racing, I think you'll begin seeing more and more of them. Just like Suspension forks, it's taking a bit of time for them to take off in popularity. I think in the future(near, far, idunno), you'll see more 29's under tall folks than shorter ones. If you read many companies lines, they "use specific sizing" for their small and large frames. Makes sense really, Now why don't they do that to wheels? I mean, the idea is to have a bike that is porportionate to the body riding it, correct? Now, I know that not everyone is crazy about the big wheel, that's the reason that certain companies won't do it. There is a market to be catered to in the tall ones out there. We've basically been ignored for the last 25 years, its about time we get our due!

[grizzly adam]

Like someone mentioned, it's just marketing. If it has a cool name we'll look at it and be interested.

I have to agree with the Bridgestone posts. Those bike handles beautifully! Telepathically was a GREAT word. I know I've said this before, but I rode my '93 Bridgestone up until 2 years ago. That was with a rigid fork and thumb shifter and no V-brakes. I also equipped it with chainrings before the whole "compact" craze. The geometry was awesome. I felt very balanced between the wheels and the handling was phenominal. I like to have a nice balance on my bike - not too far forward, not too far back. Take a look at BMWs, a lot of their cars have close to a 50/50 weight distribution. Why not the same for bikes? That's what I felt like on my MB-1. And it didn't have any fancy monikers to tell me.

When it came time for me to get a new bike, I was worried that I wouldn't find anything that handled as well. Enter the Bianchi Grizzly. It's like an MB-1 with technology - tubeless, 9 speed, V-brakes, shocks - although, I think I want a flatter stem.

I don't know how I feel about all this compact frame design, but I guess if you can make the bike handle beautifully and ride like a dream, I'll buy it.

[sensorysonic]

Originally posted by finnlander

Another thing I admire about GF is that with the 29" wheel he trying to sell something he thinks is better from his own experience. I can guess it isn't too popular with the marketing or manufacturing people because its got to add cost to building the bikes and they aren't selling like hotcakes. Bike shops also seem reluctant to recommend them because they don't want to stock more stuff.


Yeah, I agree, the right bike shops are actually pushing the 29er bikes. The Sports Hut guys and gals were really ranting and raving about 29ers for taller riders. They brought in a full 2003 line of Fisher 29ers, and they sold well. They also said average height riders were enjoying 29ers, but its personal opinion for shorter riders.