Question about entry-level mtbs

harsea8

Hi all.
After extensive research on web, I find myself at a bit of loss in relation to which mtb to buy. To start off, as I live in the midlands, I won't be doing any actual "mountain" biking, more like some rough road cycling mixed in with woodland tracks and muddy fields. In other words, the greatest "hurdle" I am likely to encounter is a large tree root rather than a whopping great pile of rocks.

Anyway, with that sorted out, I'll get back to the source of my confusion. Basically, it stems from the following 3 viewpoints that seem relatively prolific on the interweb......
1) That any mtb under 600/700/800 euro is a waste of money
2) If your budget is 400/500 euro, you are better off buying a second-hand high spec bike than a new bike with lower spec
3) If your budget is flexible at all, stretch yourself to a 600-800 euro bike

Now considering that most well-known brands have bikes described as "mountain bikes" for around 400/500 euro or even less, I guess my question is, which of the following is true?
1) These entry level "mountain bikes" wouldn't last 5 minutes off-road and it is effectively false advertising to call them "mountain bikes".
2) That people have very different perceptions of what "mountain biking" means and that the entry level bikes would be fine for the kind of off-road biking I describe above.

I guess I'm just trying to find out if stretching myself to a specialized rockhopper with disc brakes and 100 mm Rockshox front forks, etc.. is just plain stupid, when a Trek 3700 with lever brakes and standard suntour forks, etc...would be perfectly adequate for my uses.

blorg

What you describe doesn't really sound like mountain biking at all and you wouldn't even need a mountain bike of any description, a hybrid with wide tyres would arguably be sufficient and probably a better bet (especially if most of what you are going to be doing is on the road.)

Vélo

Or a cyclocross bike

blorg

Aquinas73 wrote: »

Or a cyclocross bike

Good option too but not in his budget.

DePurpereWolf

Don't get full suspension.
Your judgement is correct. Certain good brands will indeed sell crap bikes at low prices to newbies to make money. Look at the quality of the parts, that's most important.

harsea8

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

Don't get full suspension.
Your judgement is correct. Certain good brands will indeed sell crap bikes at low prices to newbies to make money. Look at the quality of the parts, that's most important.

Not that I am disagreeing, but a lot of posters on various forums have said that the frame is the most important thing to look at for a low-end bike as the components can be upgraded. Is that true?

harsea8

blorg wrote: »

What you describe doesn't really sound like mountain biking at all and you wouldn't even need a mountain bike of any description, a hybrid with wide tyres would arguably be sufficient and probably a better bet (especially if most of what you are going to be doing is on the road.)

Trouble is, I've not found a hybrid that I felt good on or really liked the look of. I know that considering the looks of a bike is fairly shallow, but in reality most of us are fairly shallow when it comes to what we buy

Lumen

harsea8 wrote: »

Trouble is, I've not found a hybrid that I felt good on or really liked the look of. I know that considering the looks of a bike is fairly shallow, but in reality most of us are fairly shallow when it comes to what we buy

Cycling is an emotional experience. Buy whatever makes you happiest.

If you are unsure, buy something that depreciates less, so you can flip it on if you change your mind. Second hand bikes depreciate less than new ones, and popular bikes are easier to sell than niche ones.

mossym

harsea8 wrote: »

I guess I'm just trying to find out if stretching myself to a specialized rockhopper with disc brakes and 100 mm Rockshox front forks, etc.. is just plain stupid, when a Trek 3700 with lever brakes and standard suntour forks, etc...would be perfectly adequate for my uses.

have to stay away from this thread...i just stumped up for the specialized with disc brakes, would hate to find out i was wrong...then again i am planning more offroad than your description...:D

pburns

Woodland tracks and muddy fields?

You don't need a hardcore mountain bike, that'd definetely be too much for some hybrids, certainly for the one I have (Trek 7.5) which is more towards the road-bike end of the hybrid spectrum.

How about a bike fron the Trek 7*00 range? I just have the catalogue on the desk here and they seem to have simple front suspension and a strong enough wheel/tyre combo.

http://www.trekbikes.com/au/en/bikes/bike_path/hybrid/7100e/

blorg

harsea8 wrote: »

Trouble is, I've not found a hybrid that I felt good on or really liked the look of. I know that considering the looks of a bike is fairly shallow, but in reality most of us are fairly shallow when it comes to what we buy

Difficult to argue with that but at the bottom end you will probably get a lighter and more reliable bike going for a hybrid rather than a MTB. To be honest for what you describe I would not even bother with front suspension never mind full sus. What sort of percentage of your riding is going to be on road (of whatever quality) vs off road?

Having said that the Trek 3700 probably compares reasonably well with hybrids at a similar price point.

DePurpereWolf

harsea8 wrote: »

Not that I am disagreeing, but a lot of posters on various forums have said that the frame is the most important thing to look at for a low-end bike as the components can be upgraded. Is that true?

You can also upgrade a frame.

Some people buy a bike because it says 'Giant' or 'Trek' on the frame. However, not every Giant or Trek is of the same quality. How would you describe the difference between a E350,- Giant, and a E1000,- Giant?
It's all about the components, and a frame is also a component, just as a fork, a stem, a handlebar.

thebouldwhacker

There is a 4300 available on the cycling sub forum which looks pretty good. many moons ago I was living in the midlands and bought a Trek 3700 which is still working away though its retired from any demanding work. It certainly served me well, I was using it for XC (fire roads, curragh etc) as well as just excercise on the road.

Ballyhoura kinda brought it to its limit but she never let me down... Only thing is if you buy this type of bike it will hold its own on normal cycling, try pushing it too hard off road and you'll be back by the end of the summer looking to buy another bike. You get what you pay for!:pac:

kona

Buy the best bike that you can. Personally id stay away from the cheaper treks, they have poor parts(IMO) for the money. The frames are also gigantic.
For e400 you should get at least disc brakes.

kona

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

There is a 4300 available on the cycling sub forum which looks pretty good.

Pretty good price too(for the seller), the guy is a dreamer. Never going to get near his asking for that.

Trojan

I'd spend ~400 (450 if you get accessories thrown in). Go for the Trek 4300, Giant Boulder or similar.

seamus

I think what you're looking at is what is generally referred to as "leisure" cycling, although it's fair to say that anyone who doesn't cycle for money is a "leisure" cyclist.

You're effectively looking for hybrid-style bike - slightly shorter frame, straighter posture - which can take a few more bumps than your usual commuter bike. Stick on a pair of semi-slick tyres (such as these) between 1.5 and 2 inches wide so that you can cruise easily on-road but you're not slipping everywhere on dirt tracks. I went around a few Glendalough dirt tracks on my full slicks the other week. It was interesting.

I agree with blorg - you don't need any suspension or discs. Get a fully rigid bike with v-brakes and you'll get more frame for your money. If you're looking to do sort of light touring (as it appears), you'll probably end up sticking luggage on the bike so you can stop for a picnic, and a lighter frame will be of great benefit because your luggage adds serious weight.

harsea8

thanks for replies everyone....went down LBS during lunch and tried out a few. Didn't like the feel of any of the Treks (tried the 3700 & 4300), liked the Giant Terrago Disc and Felt Q520, but loved the Rockhopper......amazed I got out of shop without a huge dent in wallet...now just thinking whether to stretch an extra €150 between the Terrago/Q520 and the Rockhopper...

(as you may have guessed, all the advice about Rockhopper being more than I need has kinda fallen on deaf ears....the quality of components vs the Giant and Felt just seems to justify that extra 150...anyway, I'll sleep on it)

thanks again

thebouldwhacker

kona wrote: »

Buy the best bike that you can. Personally id stay away from the cheaper treks, they have poor parts(IMO) for the money. The frames are also gigantic.
For e400 you should get at least disc brakes.

I hear ya man, I do only thing is that the parts are reflected in the price and as posted above they may be entry level but they have lasted me years without any trouble. So re value for money I scored high. The frames arnt gigantic, you get the one that fit you and I'm not sure about disc brakes on a bike priced below €400, brakes are one thing you dont wanna mess with...

seamus

Rockhopper's not a bad buy. It's a solid frame to upgrade from - afaik, it's effectively the same frame you get on the more expensive rockhoppers, just cheaper components.

It would be no harm to go for the basic rockhopper model with the cantilevers and work from there. It can be upgraded to discs later on if you feel they're necessary.

mossym

harsea8 wrote: »

thanks for replies everyone....went down LBS during lunch and tried out a few. Didn't like the feel of any of the Treks (tried the 3700 & 4300), liked the Giant Terrago Disc and Felt Q520, but loved the Rockhopper......amazed I got out of shop without a huge dent in wallet...now just thinking whether to stretch an extra €150 between the Terrago/Q520 and the Rockhopper...

(as you may have guessed, all the advice about Rockhopper being more than I need has kinda fallen on deaf ears....the quality of components vs the Giant and Felt just seems to justify that extra 150...anyway, I'll sleep on it)

thanks again

well honestly thanks for that, reinforced my thoughts about my rockhopper disc purchase...i was comparing to the trek 4300 and 4500 but still went with the rockhopper...

Trojan

I bought my 4300 in 2004 and used it for commuting and several decent length tours. An MTB can be a better option than an entry level hybrid for touring (due to strength).

The great thing was when I got my Crosscheck (touring spec) I was able to get a decent set of wheels and fork for the 4300, and I've had great craic using it for it's real purpose on XC single track.

That's why I personally chose a (decent) entry level MTB - it's been very handy.

kona

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I hear ya man, I do only thing is that the parts are reflected in the price and as posted above they may be entry level but they have lasted me years without any trouble. So re value for money I scored high. The frames arnt gigantic, you get the one that fit you and I'm not sure about disc brakes on a bike priced below €400, brakes are one thing you dont wanna mess with...

What Im talking about is that a 18 inch trek frame is like a 20inch kona IMO.

Discs below e400? youl get tektro IO or shimano deore mechanical. You may even get hydralics like tektro augira. All amazing brakes and much better that V-brakes.

thebouldwhacker

harsea8 wrote: »

(as you may have guessed, all the advice about Rockhopper being more than I need has kinda fallen on deaf ears....

The Rock hopper really isnt a bike for the road... Maybe I missed something but were you not saying that your not really going off road? Yes the rock hopper is a nice looking bike etc but its a bit like buying a two door coupe when you went out to buy a people carrier?? Dont get me wrong, Happy days, I love rock hoppers but for that money (€800ish) you would get a more suitable piece of kit

Trojan

If you're primary use is on road, get a set of slicks put on for free by the bikeshop when you get it. Should be free as they can sell the original set, might be a small charge.

harsea8

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

The Rock hopper really isnt a bike for the road... Maybe I missed something but were you not saying that your not really going off road? Yes the rock hopper is a nice looking bike etc but its a bit like buying a two door coupe when you went out to buy a people carrier?? Dont get me wrong, Happy days, I love rock hoppers but for that money (€800ish) you would get a more suitable piece of kit

That's the problem (or not as the case may be), the RH is not €800, it's only €660. If it was €800, I could safely forget about it and get one of the others, but it is on sale and only marginally more than the others.

Anyway, your analogy about the 2-door coupe and a people carrier is quite right. I'm also beginning to think that I might end up looking like a bit of a t*t riding around on a bright red fancy mountain bike that ain't gonna see the arse of a mountain (not round here anyways)

mossym

harsea8 wrote: »

That's the problem (or not as the case may be), the RH is not €800, it's only €660. If it was €800, I could safely forget about it and get one of the others, but it is on sale and only marginally more than the others.

was that with disc brakes? that's roughly teh price iw as getting mine for too, complete with discs

harsea8

mossym wrote: »

was that with disc brakes? that's roughly teh price iw as getting mine for too, complete with discs

yup, disc brakes on that one

Lumen

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Happy days, I love rock hoppers but for that money (€800ish) you would get a more suitable piece of kit

To summarise niceonetom after the WW200, a Tricross is "like a tank with a sofa on top".

It made sense at the time, I think.

thebouldwhacker

harsea8 wrote: »

it's only €660. If it was €800,

I'm also beginning to think that I might end up looking like a bit of a t*t riding around on a bright red fancy mountain bike that ain't gonna see the arse of a mountain

I'm guessing its the 2008 model?

Dont worry about looking like a tit, youd be one if you didnt buy the bike you wanted most.... All well and good for us to suggest what you should buy, your the one that has to live with it:D

Bluefoam

If you are going off road at all - woodland trails, any kind of field, etc. you should be looking at a hardtail mountain bike with front suspension...

Hybids are made for on road cycling... If you are mostly doing on road stuff you might consider changing the tyres and getting a front suspension with lockout...

harsea8

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I'm guessing its the 2008 model?

Dont worry about looking like a tit, youd be one if you didnt buy the bike you wanted most.... All well and good for us to suggest what you should buy, your the one that has to live with it:D

I don't think it is the 2008 model (not 100% sure though)....the bike shop owner said that the reason it is cheap is that they got a batch when the pound and euro were pretty much at parity.....as exchange rates aren't so good now, he expects the next batch to be more expensive (although that could be shop-speak for "please buy this one now!!")

thebouldwhacker

Bluefoam wrote: »

If you are going off road at all - woodland trails, any kind of field, etc. you should be looking at a hardtail mountain bike with front suspension...

Hybids are made for on road cycling... If you are mostly doing on road stuff you might consider changing the tyres and getting a front suspension with lockout...

Hybids are made for on road cycling?

thebouldwhacker

harsea8 wrote: »

I don't think it is the 2008 model (not 100% sure though)

this is the 2009 model, this is 2008

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

To summarise niceonetom after the WW200, a Tricross is "like a tank with a sofa on top".

It made sense at the time, I think.

Haha, that was my Tricross he made that comment about; I have added rack, full mudguards and a heavy Brooks saddle. Still a better choice for mixed road/light off road than a MTB though, especially if distance is involved, I've done some light touring (50-75km or so/day) on the Tricross loaded up with panniers. Same sort of distance on the MTB (when it was snowing over the winter) left my arms feeling the lack of positions. ROK_ON did the Ring of Kerry on a Tricross in relative comfort.

Note- it's a tank compared to a road bike, not necessarily compared to a MTB.

mossym

have the 2009 models just come out? or are the 2010 models just about to come out?

blorg

Bluefoam wrote: »

If you are going off road at all - woodland trails, any kind of field, etc. you should be looking at a hardtail mountain bike with front suspension...

Hybids are made for on road cycling... If you are mostly doing on road stuff you might consider changing the tyres and getting a front suspension with lockout...

You can do light off-road on a wide-tyred hybrid without suspension no problem. Cross bike is also a good choice for light off-road if you can stretch the budget.

If you are mostly doing road, don't get a mountain bike in the first place.

If you are mostly doing off-road, get a mountain bike.

kona

blorg wrote: »

You can do light off-road on a wide-tyred hybrid without suspension no problem. Cross bike is also a good choice for light off-road if you can stretch the budget.

If you are mostly doing road, don't get a mountain bike in the first place.

If you are mostly doing off-road, get a mountain bike.

I know howth isnt whistler or anything but, ive seen some lads on the single track there....using racers, drop bar racers, with road tyres and everything.

mad bastards:D

harsea8

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

this is the 2009 model, this is 2008

It's 2009 version

Ant

blorg wrote: »

You can do light off-road on a wide-tyred hybrid without suspension no problem. Cross bike is also a good choice for light off-road if you can stretch the budget.

If you are mostly doing road, don't get a mountain bike in the first place.

If you are mostly doing off-road, get a mountain bike.

I definitely agree with the cyclo-cross suggestion. The drop bars just give the frame far more versatility.

About 10 years ago, I used to go mountain biking in the Dublin mountains on decent quality fully rigid MTBs. I never had any problems keeping up with friends who had front suspension and never felt the need to get suspension forks - though if I was ever to get back into mountain biking, I wouldn't mind trying them.

These days, the closest I get to off-road cycling is whizzing around the single-track in the Phoenix Park which I do on my fixed gear, single-speed Tricross which really should have off-road or semi-slicks tyres. Mostly the downside to not having some knobbles on the tyre is a lack of traction for uphill sections but on one occasion the road tyre foolishness resulted in grazed knees. Unfortunately, I still haven't learned my lesson as most of my cycling is done on the road - or along canal towpaths - and I'm too lazy to change tyres for a short hour-long spin.