# Rumblefish vs. Stumpjumper vs. Camber????? Geez!



## CrushJeeper79 (Apr 5, 2012)

Ok guys I'm getting back into mountain biking after a long lay off. Been about 10 years since I've done any consistent riding. I grew up BMX and rode my Haro Group 1 EVERYWHERE as a teenager. Got into mountain biking back in 1996 with my first bike being a Trek 930 all steel frame no suspension. Rode that thing everywhere. So I'd say I'm above average skillwise when it comes to biking in general. Getting back in the saddle is no problem. 

I live in SoCal/OC. Things have changed SO MUCH with mountain bikes. It's like a bizarre different world with so many options, terminology, bikes etc. I pretty much think I'll be considered an "all mountain" rider once I'm fully "derusted". I'm 6'5 and 230+ lbs. In good shape and well muscled but have a long torso, arms and legs etc. My budget right now is around $2k maybe more if I wait and save a bit more. I've narrowed it down to a few bikes but am always open to advice and suggestions at this point. 

2011 Trek Rumblefish Full suspension 29er 21" frame $1999 (reg. 2409)
2012 Specialized Camber FSR 21" frame 29er $1760 (on sale due to a very slight blemish)
2011 Specialized Stumpy FSR 21" frame 26er $1700
2012 Specialized Stumpy FSR 21" frame 29er $2700

I've tested all bikes except the 26er Stumpy. The Trek is such a good value for the money in my opinion. The Camber and Stumpy 2012's rode very nice. I liked the Trek too! I almost purchased a 2011 Trek HiFI 21" 29er full suspe. for $1400. Kind of wished I had scooped it up but now glad I didn't. So that's why I'm leaning towards the RumbleFish. 

I looked at Giants, Konas, Yetis etc. But I keep coming back to Specialized. The stumpy 2012 is a bit out of my price range right now but damn it rode so nice. Almost too nice......seemed weird it was really "slushy" on the front end. I really like the look of the Rumblefish. 

Your opinions are very much appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CrushJeeper79 (Apr 5, 2012)

Nothing guys?


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Heres my take. I was looking at the Stumpjumper and the Rumblefish.

I didn't get to ride the Rumblefish so I can't comment on that. What I will say that turned me off from the Trek was the fact that it was a 142 rear frame, but came stock with 135 rear wheel set. So it leaves you needing an upgrade right off the start to take advantage of a frame feature. *Edit-- double check that about the wheels, I was looking at it on the web and can't find where I read that. So I could be wrong about it.*

You should be able to get the 29er Stumpjumper down further. I bought my 2012 Comp 29er for $2600 without much haggling.

I will say I'm enjoying the 29er, never thought I would, but it took more than a parking lot ride to see the benefits. I rode one around in a parking lot once and got right on the bashing bandwagon. Too big, unwieldy etc..

I was looking at 650B also, and the shop nudged me to try a 29er on the trails. It was a comepetely different experience on an actual trail vs. the parking lot ride. I was sold.


----------



## CrushJeeper79 (Apr 5, 2012)

Thanks TwoTone. Yeah the stumpy was a sweet ride even in the parking lot. But it seems everyone and their brother around here rides a stumpy. Trek could be the same way. 

Now I"m thinking maybe I should just get a hardtail due to my interest in bikepacking?


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

CrushJeeper79 said:


> Thanks TwoTone. Yeah the stumpy was a sweet ride even in the parking lot. But it seems everyone and their brother around here rides a stumpy. Trek could be the same way.
> 
> Now I"m thinking maybe I should just get a hardtail due to my interest in bikepacking?


Who cares what everyone else is riding?

Back in 2000, My friend, his wife, my wife and I went white water rafting. Happened to stop into a local bike shop and they had a SWorks FSR sitting there.

My budding and just looked at each ohter, we had been wanting one of those for a while. Of course, it was on sale, almost 50% off- hard to pass up.

Well we thought there was only one available, but actually there were 2, so for the next 8 years we had the exact same bikes while riding together and you know what- didn't matter it was all about the ride :thumbsup:


----------



## Sarguy (Sep 25, 2010)

Hmmmm.... Which would I choose?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

CrushJeeper79 said:


> Now I"m thinking maybe I should just get a hardtail due to my interest in bikepacking?


Road or off-road touring? I don't think a MTB swings that well to use as a road touring bike, so you can make your decision independently of that idea. On the other hand, for off-road, you'll probably want a real, stable rack. There are some for FS bikes, but it seems like a bit of a battle and I have no idea how well they work. Tons of off-the-shelf racks will go onto a hardtail well, although it's helpful if the dropouts and chainstays have the right holes already present.

There are also a few purpose-built off-road touring bikes out there, but it's definitely more of a dirt road than a singletrack attitude. So they'd probably swing to road touring well, but I can attest that drop bars on singletrack take a bit of extra finesse, and it's a bit harder to loft the front wheel.

So, Salsa Fargo or Gunnar Rock Tour, and build it up.


----------



## robertr316 (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm 6' 3" and 215#'s. Before I went bike shopping, I had convinced myself that I wanted a 2012 Stumpjumper Comp FSR 29er. I then went out and rode the 2012 Stumpy Comp FSR 29er, 2012 Camber Comp FSR 29er, 2012 Epic Comp 29er, 2012 Tallboy Aluminum, and 2012 Rumblefish Elite. Of those bikes, the Rumblefish was the one bike which, when I sat on it, I knew immediately it was the right bike. It just fit me better than the others. I've now had it for 10 days and I absolutely love that bike. I have no doubt that I picked the right bike for me.
Ride the bikes again and go for the one you're most comfortable on. I went with my gut and i don't regret it.


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

You def need to ride the bikes and see what feels good for you and what type of trails you will be riding on for sure... I dunno, i had a chance to ride a trek rumblefish and didnt like the GEO of the bike , felt too steep for me ...


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

A FS 29er with 130mm is a LOT of bike compared to garden variety XC-ish bikes. However, if you're riding trails (or want to) that are more technical in nature, that may the bike for you.

For a guy that is 6'5" that prefers more mainstream type riding, I would lean more toward something like a FS 29er with around 100mm rear travel. The 29" Camber and the Giant Anthem X 29er are couple examples of the type of bike I would steer you towards. 

Bottom line is that you really should get some tests rides in if it's at all possible. You might prefer something like the Rumblefish or the SJ 29er afterall.

Since you are 6'5", a lot of us tall guys prefer the bigger wheels, but it's always best to try everything you can before you buy. Measure twice, cut once.


----------



## mattyfury (Mar 16, 2009)

What did you end up getting?


----------



## specbill (Apr 12, 2012)

Does anyone have the real world weight on any of these?
I'm looking at these and an SC Superlight 29 D or R and they weigh 30.8 and 28.2 respectively in a medium.

Bill J


----------



## giantone (Dec 18, 2011)

I am 6 5. I ride a 23inch spec carve. Fwiw I wouldn't even consider a 21inch bike now that I've tried one that fits better.

sent from my bottom bracket while I creak


----------



## Kabob King (Mar 18, 2012)

I have been looking at bikes in your range as well. I had the opportunity to ride a camber and stumpy both 2012 comps. I liked them both, I just was trying to figure out why the stumpy is so much more. Both bikes are financially an option for me. Can someone enlighten me to the benefits of the stumpy over the camber besides the 120vs140 travel?

For reference I ride single tracks, fire roads, I ride off jumps but probably nothing much over 2-3 ft, I'm 5'8/150lb


----------



## joelzilla (Oct 2, 2011)

Beginner rider here. I went with the Rumblefish.


----------



## Doublemayo (Jan 20, 2012)

OY!, I went with the Stumpy myself, I rode a camber but it didn't have the feel of the Stumpy. The ride was fine but it felt a bit too much like my hardtail Rocky with squish in the back and i wanted to have a bit more capability. I had a Trek 930 back in 92 as well and looked at a couple of em but decided to stay away.


----------



## Mr.Quint (Mar 22, 2012)

Kabob King said:


> I have been looking at bikes in your range as well. I had the opportunity to ride a camber and stumpy both 2012 comps. I liked them both, I just was trying to figure out why the stumpy is so much more. Both bikes are financially an option for me. Can someone enlighten me to the benefits of the stumpy over the camber besides the 120vs140 travel?
> 
> For reference I ride single tracks, fire roads, I ride off jumps but probably nothing much over 2-3 ft, I'm 5'8/150lb


I bought a 2012 Camber 29, and didn't go with the Stumpy, mostly because it was too much money. But as I understand it, the Camber is more of a XC bike, where the Stumpy is more All-Mountain. It's got longer travel for one thing.

I like the Camber a lot, but like the first post, I hadn't been on a mountain bike regularly since my old rigid Raleigh in '93.


----------



## Bigwheel29 (Feb 9, 2012)

I have a hardtail 29er, was looking at the Stumpy in the Elite. Seems to offer a bit more range in movement between a hardtail and short travel bike like the Camber


----------



## dpo (Apr 30, 2012)

I find myself in the same situation this weekend. I am shopping for my 1st full susp bike ( 500.00 HT Trek for the last year). I have ridden the RF yesterday, and the stumpy 29 er today. They both feel almost the same to me. The stumpy felt a bit lighter and flickable to me. The RF suspension felt better to me. The RF is around 300.00 cheaper. The controls were both almost identical.

So here I sit...credit card in hand..unable to make a decision...lmao.

Maybe i'll ge back to the Spec shop tomorrow and ride the 26. Neither Trek shop near me had a Fuel ex 8 in stock. I feel the 29 would be better for me since I am 51 and although in good shape..the less beating I take the better..haha. 

Sorry if I jacked your thread OP.


----------



## Sarguy (Sep 25, 2010)

dpo said:


> I find myself in the same situation this weekend. I am shopping for my 1st full susp bike ( 500.00 HT Trek for the last year). I have ridden the RF yesterday, and the stumpy 29 er today. They both feel almost the same to me. The stumpy felt a bit lighter and flickable to me. The RF suspension felt better to me. The RF is around 300.00 cheaper. The controls were both almost identical.
> 
> So here I sit...credit card in hand..unable to make a decision...lmao.
> 
> ...


Definitely ride 'em all before you choose, then if you can't decide, ride 'em all again, eventually one will sweet talk you into a decision. Good luck.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

It's possible that the suspension settings were not optimally set up for you on one or both of the bikes. I am amazed at how many shops send a customer out the door with the air pressure in shocks and forks so horribly off. 

Just for comparison purposes, I would make sure they set the rebound about right in the middle, and put the sag (while seated in the climbing position) in the 25% to 30% range. If the rear shock has a 'Pro Pedal' type setting, I would try it in both the 'on' and 'off' positions. I would also make sure the tire pressures and saddle height are adjusted properly. Those things can absolutely skew a comparison.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

jeffj said:


> *It's possible that the suspension settings were not optimally set up for you on one or both of the bikes. I am amazed at how many shops send a customer out the door with the air pressure in shocks and forks so horribly off. *
> 
> Just for comparison purposes, I would make sure they set the rebound about right in the middle, and put the sag (while seated in the climbing position) in the 25% to 30% range. If the rear shock has a 'Pro Pedal' type setting, I would try it in both the 'on' and 'off' positions. I would also make sure the tire pressures and saddle height are adjusted properly. Those things can absolutely skew a comparison.


Very good point, I had one shop spend almost 20 minutes with me making sure the bike was all set up comfortable for me, the other took the money and sent me out the door. Don't understand why shops do that, good way not to get a sale if the bike rides like **** because of a setting.


----------



## sinfony78 (Dec 2, 2012)

i thought i was set on a stumpjumper vs rumblefish, but 2 bike shops told me to put the camber in there too...said that the stumpy and RF are great bikes for what they are made for, but for overall riding, the camber is the way to go, that they are more efficient climbers and can handle a wider variety of trails than the other 2...can someone explain? and why would it be a better climber if i can set the forks to climb (is it weight?)


----------



## shibiwan (Sep 2, 2012)

sinfony78 said:


> i thought i was set on a stumpjumper vs rumblefish, but 2 bike shops told me to put the camber in there too...said that the stumpy and RF are great bikes for what they are made for, but for overall riding, the camber is the way to go, that they are more efficient climbers and can handle a wider variety of trails than the other 2...can someone explain? and why would it be a better climber if i can set the forks to climb (is it weight?)


Call be biased but the Stumpy is perhaps the most flexible ride. It's really considered a trail bike but in reality it sit somewhere between an XC bike (like the Camber) or an AM bike (e.g. Specialized Enduro). The flexibility is why the bike continues to be one of the more popular models out there.

-S


----------



## Flowy (Dec 16, 2011)

sinfony78 said:


> i thought i was set on a stumpjumper vs rumblefish, but 2 bike shops told me to put the camber in there too...said that the stumpy and RF are great bikes for what they are made for, but for overall riding, the camber is the way to go, that they are more efficient climbers and can handle a wider variety of trails than the other 2...can someone explain? and why would it be a better climber if i can set the forks to climb (is it weight?)


I have a 2011 camber elite 29er and have ridden a friend's 26" stumpjumper. I think the reason for the Camber being considered a better climber is not weight but the geometry, the SJ seems a lot slacker to me - great for pointing downhill but not ideal for climbs.

I really like the Camber as a good balance between the slack SJ and the pure XC Epic. I think the people who told you to consider the Camber have a point. I ride trails in south eastern PA that are a mix of rocky, somewhat technical and smooth flowing single track. The Camber feels very capable on both those types of trails. I wouldn't want to do true all mountain trails on it and it sure wouldn't be the lightest and quickest XC racing machine but it is right in between those two extremes.


----------



## sinfony78 (Dec 2, 2012)

wouldn't the stumpjumper and rumblefish fit in that same area as well?


----------



## Flowy (Dec 16, 2011)

sinfony78 said:


> wouldn't the stumpjumper and rumblefish fit in that same area as well?


That's true, but to me the SJ leans more towards the all mountain end of the spectrum, more than I feel is necessary for the type of riding I do.


----------

