View Single Post
Old 04-11-06, 09:44 AM
  #7  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,274

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6147 Post(s)
Liked 4,093 Times in 2,325 Posts
Originally Posted by Ranger
You will find that similarly priced bikes are very similar. This is not by accident. Different manufacturers have to compete with each other at each price point, if their price was not competitive, than we all know what would happen.

Also regarding "entry level bikes", do not assume that just because a bike is termed entry level that it is vastly inferior. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The Trek 4500 as used in the above example is considered an entry level bike, just like the rock hopper. They are somewhat heavier than a hard tail costing $1000 or more. But probably not as much as you think. The 4500 and rock hopper probably weigh around 30-32lbs respectively.

Bumping up to a $1000 hard tail may shave 5 lbs off of that figure. (might) How important is 5 lbs to the average rider? Answer: Not very. Consider that if you have two loaded water bottles they will likely weigh near that if not more. Or consider that if you lost 5 lbs off your body, you would have the same effect.
While I agree that, for the most part, there is little difference in bikes at each price range, I don't think this holds true for bicycles designed for women. Things change for those bikes alot more from brand to brand. If you look at the Trek 4500 WSD and the Rockhopper women's, there are rather big differences. I might have been overstating it when I said that the Trek is half the bike of the Rockhopper but not by much. The shock on the Rockhopper alone is far superior. It has an alloy steer - lighter- , an adjustable travel - better for shorter women - and a lockout. Just the lockout makes it superior, especially if you want to do road riding. The alloy steerer will also lighten the fork about a pound over a steel steer tube.

As for weight, I'll agree that a bike that is only 5 pounds lighter isn't that big of a deal...if you are a 5'9", 170 to 200lb guy! It's nothing! But if you are a 5'2" 100 to 115 lb woman, it can be up to 5% of your total body weight. Plus power output between men and women is not the same even for similar weights. Hucking 5 extra pounds up a hill when for us guys isn't much of an effort. Hucking 5 extra pounds for women can be damned difficult! And losing 5% of her body mass, especially if she is fairly fit already, isn't easy or necessarily a good idea.


Originally Posted by Ranger
As far as entry level bikes and components, the components on either of the bikes mentioned will outlast most buyers. Most bicycle buyers ride for awhile and then the bike hangs in the garage for eternity. That is why the entry level bike is a good option. You don't have to invest too much to find out if riding is for you.

I have two Trek 4300's that i purchased two and a half years ago. One now has over 9,000 miles on it and the other has around 5,000. Most of these miles have been on unpaved gravel and dirt roads. THe bikes have performed flawlessly. I have upgraded components as they wore out, but just because i wanted to upgrade. I could have stayed with an Alivio derailleur for example but i wanted to try XT. I tried it and learned that they basically perform just the same if adjusted correctly.
Entry level bikes are a good place to start. But they can also be a good place to end, before you even find out about the joys of bicycling. I've been down that road many times. You buy one bike, find you really like it and then the bike holds you back. So you end up buy the bike again only a higher level next time. You end up paying twice as much for the bike. Or you buy an heavy entry level bike, it's not fun to ride and it ends up sitting in your garage for decades before being given to Goodwill.

There are differences between levels of components. Some of it is weight. Most of the lower level components have pieces replaced with stamped steel instead of alloy that you find in higher levels. But there are other differences as well. They can be rather subtle at times but they are there. An XT or XTR shifts more crisply then Acera. If you are muscling up a hill and you need to pop off a gear, the XT is probably going to do it a bit quicker then the Acera. This might mean the difference between getting to the top while riding or walking the hill. Gum up the whole works with mud and the XT will continue to perform well while the Acera might not.


Originally Posted by Ranger
You have to understand that paying more for a bicycle mainly means paying to be lighter. Sure you get some better components but what a person is really paying for is a lighter bike which will be slightly faster in race conditions. The difference in component PERFORMANCE is overstated in most cases.

DISCLAIMER: My type of riding, is that i just ride. I don't do aggressive single track, or any form of racing. I just ride for fitness and for fun. If you plan to race, ride agressive trails, etc. than the feasiblity of upgrading may be there for you.

Paying more for a bicycle does mean paying money for light weight. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't race so less weight doesn't make me any faster. Less weight means that the ride is more enjoyable. Paying more also means paying for durability, less fussyness and more enjoyment which just might keep you riding and, after all, isn't that what you want to do?
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!



cyccommute is offline