Tag1

I've narrowed my search down to two hardtails at this point: Trek 6700 and Fisher HKEK.

I rode the 6700 and the HKEK very briefly and liked both, but I like a lot about the HKEK better; lighter frame, shimano components, color etc.

I'm thinking to order a HKEK from my fav LBS, and looking at the specs on both, they look pretty identical from what I can see. I know the GF frames are supposed to have the "Genesis" geometry, but it looks very similiar to the Trek specs, geometry-wise. Any major differences I'm missing?

(I'm looking at the 19/19.5" size)

HKEK specs
6700 specs (Click on "Geometry")

Thanks for any help!

ankush

oh, i would go hkek all the way. the 6700 has a better rear changer (sram x9), imo. other than that, the spec sheet is identical. (i am on a very old laptop right now so cannot go to the links you give above, it would be very troublesome, but sort of remember the spec sheets, so i might be wrong, but i think other than the drive train the spec sheet is identical). the hkek has a better frame. also it has more travel already.

the genesis geometry basically allows you to stretch more on the bike. i kinda dig that. when i bought my bike i really had no idea about stuff, and well, when i started i found my 6500 frame (same as the 6700) to be too stretched, but now as i am getting used to the bike, i am finding myself wanting more space to stretch out and go flatter over the bars if you know what i mean. the genesis geometery allows that naturally without swapping stems and yadayada, so personally for me if i had to go all over again, id go with a gary fisher. and then plus the better zr9000 frame and the 20 mm extra travel.

man if both frames feel alright to you, then go for the hkek for sure!

khuon

The Fisher looks to be a more XC-oriented bike. It has a shorter headtube and probably lower headtube height. This will position you lower than the Trek. The Fisher also has shorter chainstay and wheelbase making it a better climber and turner. Just by the numbers, I would personally be leaning towards the Fisher but of course the proof is in the ride.

ankush

wow, now see i had no idea about all of that.

just curious, when you say the fisher is more xc oriented, what does that make the trek, geometry wise? what i mean is they spec the trek with less travel, so with my limited knowledge i would have automatically guessed (foolishly, as it turns out) that the trek would be more xc. anyway, i am not - nor am in any position to- question your call, just wondering with the treks geometry, what would it be most suited for?

if thats a dumb question, sorry!!

Tag1

Hadn't noticed that on the the HKEK - another perk!

khuon

They're both XC bikes but the HKEK is just slightly more XC-oriented. I wouldn't necessarily go by fork travel as both 80mm and 100mm are suitable for XC. The shorter headtube on the HKEK is probably spec'ed to accomodate the slightly longer fork while still allowing for a lower rider position. That combined with the shorter chainstays signals to me that the bike was made for climbing more than the Trek. I guess what I should probably say is that the HKEK has a more XC race-oriented geometry and the 6700 has a more XC recreational geometry.

khuon

Note that the front suspension is a RockShox Tora 318 Solo Air. These forks have adjustable travel (80mm/100mm/130mm). The amount of travel is changed using spacers.

ankush

cool. thanks for taking the time to answer my question man. when you say lower riding position does that mean the same thing like i was saying before, that i wish i could stretch out a little more on my bike? i was just wondering what the difference in handling might be between a hkek, which has a larger reach within the angles and lengths of the frame itself, and a 6500 like mine with a shorter frame but a longer stem? yknow what i mean?

i guess i am trying to ask is if i had a bike with a lower riding position due to a longer top tube and/or a shorter head tube etc and used, lets say, a 100 mm stem on it that gave me a good feeling position, would the feel and handle of that bike be different than a frame with a more 'comfortable' sit, like the 6500, but with a longer or lower angled stem that makes me put my weight more on the front and thus made the reach similar to the other longer frame?

uh, i guess the best way to find out would be to actually ride two bikes like that, but i was just wondering if there were any general theory behind it. sorry to hijack the thread with dumb questions!

pinkrobe

Definitely test ride. The bikes are basically the same, except for the longer top tube on the HKEK. It's a full inch longer than the Trek, so it depends on whether you like that much reach. You'll never know which feels better until you get out for a test ride. I don't fit Fisher bikes at all - they are way too stretched out for me. YMMV.

ankush

thanks for the reply. i get the bit about needing to test ride. i am just wondering though that if i have two bikes, one with a top tube an inch longer than the other lets say and a 100 mm stem, and the other bike with the shorter top tube and a 120 mm stem, would the riding characterstics be the same? as in a bike with a longer reach built into its geometry versus a bike with a shorter geometry but made longer through other parts like a stem or maybe a lower bar etc. um, i guess i am not being very articulate. this is where i pull my "i am not from a native english speaking country" card. anyway, it was just a passing thought, just struck me as interesting.

Indy_Rider

The HKEK is a genesis hard tail, so yes geometery is different. The Genesis geometery works for some and doesn't for others. So take it a test ride and see if it works for you.

Tag1

Except if you check out the specs, the Trek's tob tube is 24.6 for the 19.5", and the GF is 24.7...how is that an inch longer?