Powered by Outside
2010 commencal furious
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
2010 commencal furious
32 Comments
  • 1 0
 I don't understand why they would make the travel smaller on the furious? Maybe its a new frame, marketed towards the 'slopestyle' fads.
  • 3 0
 Im pretty sure thats an absolute sx?
  • 1 0
 very similar to a bottle rocket or a parker aside from the bottom triangle linkage
  • 1 0
 haha, yeah, i was gonna say, it looks more like a prototype 2010 bottlerocket if anything, sick though!
  • 0 0
 Nice, but i think commencal should have a new bike like this for slopestyle and keep the furious as it is with more travel!
  • 2 0
 Thats not a Furious its an Absolut SX new from commencal but it is sick
  • 0 0
 Concentric BB pivot, good choice for a slopestyle rig
  • 0 0
 Umm... the Furious is a slopestyle bike.
  • 0 0
 nvm, thought it was their 4x
  • 0 0
 The Meta 4X is their 4X/slalom rig, hence the name.
  • 0 0
 thats awesome
  • 3 5
 It's gonna be a fun bike but looks like a yeti 4x in almos every detail.
  • 2 0
 Except the bolt-on dropouts, concentric bottom bracket, and the 1 1/8" top and 1.5" bottom headtube. So yeah, kinda pretty much not almost every detail.
  • 0 4
flag core559 (Feb 7, 2009 at 23:03) (Below Threshold)
 head tube is f*ckin stupid. i hate that. the 1.5 bottom 1 1/8 top is for guys that can't make up their mind. like 24 inch wheels...
  • 2 0
 Actually, 1.5" lower and 1 1/8" upper is for guys who wants a way stronger headtube than usual. You should look into it before saying that you hate it, it's actually pretty cool.
  • 2 2
 1.5 is alot stronger. and doesn't weigh much more. and it looks better.
  • 2 0
 I think 1.5" top and bottom looks goofy, like way too oversized. I think that you'd be surprised to learn that 1 1/8" top and 1.5" lower is just as strong as 1.5" top and bottom, and a bit lighter to boot.
  • 1 1
 Less practical though? I think they should just go for one or the other, it would be more sensible.
  • 1 3
 What is practical really.
  • 3 1
 One definition from dictionary.com: "Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration." I.e. a standard size so that most components will be compatible without modification or replacement.
  • 2 2
 this IS practical though so how can some say its less practical than previous styles.
  • 2 2
 im not saying i dont know what it means. im saying what could you really consider practical and whatNOT when you really think about it
  • 2 1
 It's not practical because you cannot run a standard headset such as a Chris King. Practical would be a standard 1 1/8" headtube.
  • 3 2
 you sure could.
  • 1 4
 You can't run a Chris King headset on that bike.
  • 4 1
 chris king 1 1/8th no threadset upper cup assembly
chris king 1.5 lower cup assembly.
stronger than 1 1/8th. as strong as a 1.5 but considerably lighter.

sorry.
  • 0 0
 why can't you?
  • 2 0
 and congratulations on giving yourself props
  • 0 0
 dylaine, it's not standard, it's integrated. That means no Chris King. Sorry.
  • 0 0
 lol WOW brain fart Blank Stare yep you win. its definitly impractical.
  • 0 0
 u can put reducer on the bottom and it would work on any headset but intrigrated i know a guy who put a ck on his 09 sx trail 2 and it works looks goofy but it works. tapered forks really is the way to go though i would get one right now though. i would wait untill more headset and fork companys make components for a 1.5 to 1 1/8 head tubes. so in a way it is a not really practical yet but give it a year or two and well see what its like then.
  • 0 0
 everyone is far too picky







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.027697
Mobile Version of Website