Hi Guys,

I recently got back into riding and I'm about to upgrade from my Fuji Sunfire 2.0. I'm looking at either the Cannondale Quick 2 or the Quick CX 2.

I LOVE the look and weight of the Quick and if it had lockable front suspension I'd have bought it already.

The Quick CX 2 on the other hand is a little uglier and heavier but has the front suspension...

So I have a question.

85-90% of my riding is on roads, paved river paths (with a few cracks and bumps) or fine(ish) crushed rock, and
10-15% is on rougher surfaces ranging from larger crushed rock to actual off-road dirt, larger rock paths, etc.

So would the Quick 2 be able to handle that? It has no suspension but it has the cannondale SAVE system...which apparently takes the shocks out of bumps.

Has anyone had any experience with the Quicks?

Thanks, Alex.

The SAVE system is only designed to reduce high frequency vibrations from the road, not rough stuff off road.

I think you could ride rough trails without suspension, in fact we did just that for many years before RockShox were invented. Suspension forks were a great improvement though, especially on long bumpy downhills.

The CX will work better off-road, but it won't be as efficient on the road, so if you don't mind going a little slower on pavement, that would probably be a better choice. In my experience hydraulic disc brakes require very little maintenance and they don't wear down rims, which makes them worth their weight in my opinion.

If you want a lighter faster ride on the road, maybe get the Quick, put wider knobby tires on the Sunfire, and ride whichever bike suits best your intended route that day.

For most of the riding you describe, I'd opt for a bike with rigid fork, but if you're delving into rougher mountain bike trails, you probably want suspension.

Yep. I went into another bike store yesterday which the Cannondale site said stocked them...they didn't. Then he shows me a Scott Sportster 10 and said he could do it for the same price as the Quick 2.

So now the research starts again:

What do you reckon?

I don't think I could have left the store without that one! I totally should have gone multi-sport instead of MTB on my last purchase. I don't see the downside. Lighter, faster on the trail and on the road. I don't do jumps and stuff. I wouldn't hesitate to enter a XC race with that bike. In fact the tires are designed for exactly that, cross country and marathon racing. I think Lance has been seen racing on that tire.

My hybrids are more of the flat bar road bike variety. I use them almost exclusively on the road and I'm usually running late or in a hurry. The Scott will be slower on the road than my hybrids (under the same rider) but it's certainly capable of handling road riding, and much better suited for the road riding I do than the hybridized MTB that I use when rain is expected which is very often around here.

So...after a VERY painful experience trying to find a descent bike in Australia in a XXL I finally make a purchase.

I was sold on the above bike Sportster10 but they only brought that into Australia in a S, M L...RIDICULOUS! So I find the 20...similar spec but with v-brakes instead of discs...I initially bulked at that but was talked around by a salesman that said he rides DH with v-brakes...anyway...I was over the whole experience by that time and they actually had a XXL on the floor ready to go!

Yay...you mean I can actually sit on the bike and see it before paying for it? Again...Yay!

So here it is...hope I've made the right choice...

V-brakes are a lot lighter than discs. They require more maintenance but stopping power shouldn't be a problem.

The bike looks sweet!

That is a very very nice bike! I didn't look at any Scott bikes when bought my Utopia, it was more of an impulse purchase, but if I had think that Sportster 10 would have been on the short list. Glad you found one in your size.