I posted a question over on the Long Distance Cycling forum but suspect my definition of long distance and theirs is slightly different so felt like a bit of an intruder. However, I know exactly what a clyde is and feel like I'm part of this club (260, 5'8").
I'm doing a 100km ride in 2 months but can't decide on which of the 2 bikes I have to use, so would appreciate some advice.
I have a fairly decent Giant Boulder (mtb) from about 2000 and a bigger green mountain bike that was donated to me, but I don't know what it is. The dilemma is that I think the boulder is too small for me and I've read that a bigger frame is better for longer distances. It seems perfect that I've got the green bike but I'm wondering if it's worth spending time/money bringing it up to scratch.
Here's a summary:
Boulder: newish, seems quite good, 21 gears, front suspension, good brakes, slightly too small (probably ok for off road)
Green one: unknown bike, looks basic, 15 gears, no suspensions, brakes look basic, bigger frame (better for on road)
I don't really want to swap componentry as I have a friend who'll use the boulder if I don't.
So 2 questions:
1) does it make sense to go for a bigger frame bike?
2) is it worth spending money on good components for a rubbish frame? Or should I stick with what I know (i.e. the boulder)?
Any advice welcome.
Here's a picture of the green one:
shifters for the gears: