N+1 - Carrying kids and maybe mountain biking

thejaguar

I'm considering getting a new bike - mainly for family type riding.

For now, that means kids on a seat on the back. So it needs to be able to hold a decent bit of weight (95kg + 25kg potentially). It also means mainly tipping around on roads or down to the local park. Nothing fancy.

I'd like to be able to take it off road if the humour ever took me. This might happen once - or it might never happen - but I'd like the option.

I was looking at a Giant Roam, which seems like a nice bike that could do the job.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on particular bikes or what generally to look out for - budget being between €500 and €1000, the closer to €500 the better ideally.

Officer Giggles

thejaguar wrote: »

I'm considering getting a new bike - mainly for family type riding.

For now, that means kids on a seat on the back. So it needs to be able to hold a decent bit of weight (95kg + 25kg potentially). It also means mainly tipping around on roads or down to the local park. Nothing fancy.

I'd like to be able to take it off road if the humour ever took me. This might happen once - or it might never happen - but I'd like the option.

I was looking at a Giant Roam, which seems like a nice bike that could do the job.

I'd appreciate any suggestions on particular bikes or what generally to look out for - budget being between €500 and €1000, the closer to €500 the better ideally.

Im in the exact same boat as yourself regarding requirements. My my cycle to work is up for renewal this year now that the term has been reduced to four years so I'll be looking to buy from a shop whenever stock returns.

I was looking at the Giant Escape.

thejaguar

That's given me something to think about.

Do I REALLY need suspension on the front forks....

dave_o_brien

I have an angle on this.

I lived with my partner and our daughter in an apartment and space was at a premium - room for 2 bikes outside but none inside and I did not want to store my good bike outside. So I stored my good road bike in my folks and got an entry level road bike with 28mm tyres to put the bike seat on. It meant I could do the creche run, tip about on leisure trips with my partner and daughter and still get out for a decent spin without having to store an extra bike inside. Twas a great set up for a while.

We recently moved to a house and have the luxury of more space. I wanted to get a bike with a bit more cush as Bubs was getting bigger and something that offered me the ability to do a different type of riding entirely.

I got a Cannondale Trail 4 29. It's much more comfortable for the creche run, quick enough with the fork locked that I can commute on it or pop into town and enough of a mountain bike that I can legitimately bosh about Ticknock on it without the bike being a limiting factor (my skill does that for me).

I'd highly recommend a 29er with a fork that can lock out.

Officer Giggles

thejaguar wrote: »

That's given me something to think about.

Do I REALLY need suspension on the front forks....

I personally don't envisage a need for it. My view is that it is only adding weight and another part that could go wrong/need servicing

dave_o_brien

Officer Giggles wrote: »

I personally don't envisage a need for it. My view is that it is only adding weight and another part that could go wrong/need servicing

Unless you're actually going to use it for it's intended purpose.

Plus, if this is a bike for tipping about on and carrying a child (combined weight of say 110kg), then I don't think the weight in the fork will make any meaningful difference.

That said, I'd rather have no suspension than bad suspension and I'd rather have the right amount of suspension for the most extreme type of riding the bike will get used for. If that is only road, then the answer is none. If that includes off-road, like to OP says it might, then it could be more than none.

Officer Giggles

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I'd rather have the right amount of suspension for the most extreme type of riding the bike will get used for. If that is only road, then the answer is none. If that includes off-road, like to OP says it might, then it could be more than none.

Suppose this is what it boils down to.

I would have thought suspension would only be needed for surfaces that are not just simply off road but surfaces that are rougher than that.

dave_o_brien

Officer Giggles wrote: »

Suppose this is what it boils down to.

I would have thought suspension would only be needed for surfaces that are not just simply off road but surfaces that are rougher than that.

Agreed, but the thread title is "maybe mountain biking" so I think it's safe to assume the OP means more extreme than a canal path...

Officer Giggles

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Agreed, but the thread title is "maybe mountain biking" so I think it's safe to assume the OP means more extreme than a canal path...

True and I suppose I should have absolutely clarified it from the start but I often find people use the term "mountain biking" as a generic description for everything that isn't cycling on a sealed road

thejaguar

Thanks for the input lads.

For mountain biking - I was very much thinking somewhere like Ticknock. There's a teeny voice in my head saying "you'll never bother to go there, you don't need any suspension".

But there's another voice saying "you could be the greatest mountain biker the world has ever seen - do you really want to miss out on that chance?"

I reckon I'll probably go with suspension that will lock.

dave_o_brien

thejaguar wrote: »

Thanks for the input lads.

For mountain biking - I was very much thinking somewhere like Ticknock. There's a teeny voice in my head saying "you'll never bother to go there, you don't need any suspension".

But there's another voice saying "you could be the greatest mountain biker the world has ever seen - do you really want to miss out on that chance?"

I reckon I'll probably go with suspension that will lock.

Just go for an actual mountain bike in that case. The Giant Roam is not suitable for Ticknock, so you'd end up with compromises on too many fronts.

thejaguar

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Just go for an actual mountain bike in that case. The Giant Roam is not suitable for Ticknock, so you'd end up with compromises on too many fronts.

This might be a stupid question - what's the difference between the Giant Roam and the Cannondale Trail?

dave_o_brien

thejaguar wrote: »

This might be a stupid question - what's the difference between the Giant Roam and the Cannondale Trail?

It's not a stupid question.

Allowing for variations in spec for things like forks, in general the Roam has steeper angles for the headtube and seattube, higher bottom bracket and has been designed around narrower tyres. Absolutely fine for knocking about canal paths or fire-roads, but on single track it would handle very poorly in comparison to a dedicated mountain bike.

XC style hardtails will come with slacker angles, lower bb's and generally be designed to handle steep tech trails. They'll also be designed to accommodate much wider tyres and typically get supplied with 2.2-2.5" tyres.

My thought process was this:

Riding around with Bubs in the child seat can be done on any bike. I had a dedicated road bike (Giant TCR Advanced 1), so wanted something capable of cross country mtb'ing. So I just got a xc mtb and stuck a child seat on. It's not the fastest thing on the roads, but I'm mostly with my daughter in that case and really don't care about the speed. But it is great fun on the trails, superb bike for that kind of riding for someone of my level. The Giant Talon is probably the equivalent if you're going to a Giant Stockist.