Gary Fisher (or his company, I don't know which) is the inventor of "Genesis Geometry". Out of all of the bikes I've ridden, Fisher bikes tend to climb the best and descend the best. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is the Genesis Geometry. It's hard to draw a picture here, but basically it puts your weight further back on the bike, or further over the back wheel, while you're sitting.

It's pretty well known at this point that standing up while ascending or descending a hill is a pretty bad idea. When going downhill it puts your weight too far forward and you take the chance of an endo. When you're climbing it takes weight off of the back tire, which you need for traction, and it will compress the bike (and shocks) more, sucking power out of your legs for no useful purpose. When you're seated, the Genesis Geometry stablizes your position on the bike, giving you balance while descending and traction while ascending.

The frames aren't the lightest or best in the world, but if you take the frame, pop some nice tires on it, good pedals, a wicked suspension and a good set of derailers, rings and cogs... you've got yourself one hell of a contender. I'm not talking about those softtail bikes, but the Fisher hardtails are pretty damned wicked.

I've seen a number of people with the bikes from the "Sugar" series and these are good bikes, but people never seem to be using a softtail bike for what it was meant for: Downhill Mountain Biking. If all you're going to do is cross country type stuff with some climbing and descending, bunny hops and a few baby heads here and there, what they hell are you doing with a Sugar? Don't get me wrong... Fisher's are cool, and if I were doing some downhill, i just might head the Sugar route, but if you're doing cross country, why are giving all your energy to your suspension?

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.