Phx223

Hello,

I have the option of either buying a 2002 FSR xc bike or a 2012 Hardtail. Both will cost me 700ish. The hard tail will be brand new (or does that go without saying) and the 2002 has been ridden less than 200 miles and well maintained. I am pretty new at riding, and for the next year or so will be doing mostly flats over long distances.

Thanks for your help.

Zephyr11

I don't even see a 2002 FSRxc on bikepedia. Is is the Stumpjumper FSR xc ( https://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...R+XC&Type=bike )? Oldest FSRxc I can find is the 2004 ( https://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...R+XC&Type=bike ). I definitely wouldn't pay $700 for the second one...old bike and was only $880 to begin with. The Stumpy is nicer, but that's still a 10 year old bike. Want to let us know what hardtail you're looking at?

Phx223

Should have provided this info at the get go.

FS 2002 Stumpjumper FSR ( https://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...Comp&Type=bike )xc comp 700
HT 2012 Cannondale Trail SL 2 715 ( https://www.bikepedia.com/PA/Item.aspx?ItemID=520998 )w/free tune-up and "lifetime guarantee"

YamiRider1316

I would get the hardtail

PaintedSpokes

personally I like the XC better but it's probably not the best choice just due to its age. suspension seals can wear out, frames can develop small cracks from stress, the suspension bushings can go, etc. if you can have the guy get it inspected by a bike shop first, do it. if not you're probably better off with the crank n' fail.

zeronine3

I believe that mountain bikes have come too far in 10 years to be getting a bike that old. For $700 you should be able to find a pretty good newer, used bike, that will still fit the bill. If you're going to be doing long distances over flat terrain then I would also stick with a hardtail. That Cannondale doesn't look too shabby though if you want to stick with a new bike.