lets say its $1500 USD. so?

wow, and here i thought i had at least an entry level bike...

IMO, $1500 would buy a very nice entry to mid level, hard tail, XC race bike.
For recreational use, $1500 would be far from entry-level.
That is my point of view, others may disagree.

thanks for your reply, Can you please give me some brand/model for a $1500 (US Dollar) Entry Level XC hardtail with an aluminium frame. I could probably sale my current bike and add another $500 with my $1500. So my total budget would be $2000, what is the best entry level hardtail XC bike for that. Please keep in mind that I dont race. but do lots of aggressive XC.

Specialized Hardrock or the Trek steel bike without front shock, those are the entry level. The least expensive mountain bike with bare-bones parts (well actually the hardrock is a nice bike with more than adequate parts). If you can break either one of these bikes it would be eye opening...unless you're falling four or five feet onto the bike but that's expert territory. Also the specialized Expedition fits the bill too but it has more upright handlebars for bike path rambling.

From the point of view of my little brain it seems that just saying entry level bike without saying what it’s an entry level into just has no meaning.

An entry-level Cyclocross bike would be the lowest level offering that you could expect to be able to survive and function on a racecourse. Not that you are going to race it but that it could survive out there.

A department store “Mtn. Bike” will not survive real off road use so it is NOT an entry-level Mountain Bike but it might be an entry level urban cruising bike.

did you read what other members have been talking about? please, read the thread and then post. that would be much more productive for everybody. thanks

I just posted an answer to what the thread starter asked, I don’t need to wait and see what the rest of you say, I have my own view. If it's already been said then just skip over it and go on with your discussion.

And how are your petulant comments adding anything more to the thread than mine?

I said "IMO, $1500 would buy a very nice entry to mid level, hard tail, XC race bike."
My mistake, I would really consider most bikes in that price range not to be entry level.

If you have a budget of $1500 - $2000, who cares if someone thinks that it is entry, mid, high, pro, or whatever level,
just look for the bikes you like the most in and near your price range,
try some out if possible,
ask what others experiences are with those models,
and use your own judgement to buy a bike that you will like.

thanks that was very helpful.

Sherpa did you really think $1500-2000 was only an entry level bike? I'm not sure half the people here could be biking if it was. Entry level to me is something like the Hardrock or Rockhopper near the high end. If all you want is an entry level bike you won't need nearly that much money. What you have to spend is getting more towards high end. I'd recommend basically doing what Sipes said and just going to your LBS to see what they have in that price range. You certainly have a lot more options than I do looking for an "entry-level" bike since I only have $5-600 lol

That much will get you a sweet, light, mid-to-lower-high-end XC hardtail. I bought a Specialized Stumpjumper for $1100, put in another $500 in accessories (clipless shoes, camelback, multitool, spare tubes, misc. junk) and started riding. I've put in about $700 since then due to upgrades (eggbeaters, ergon grips, new saddle) and breaking stuff (Mavic wheelset). I have some more sunk from making it work with my life (wall bike rack for the living room).

So, be wary of what you spend. Factor in everything associated with the sport... your $2,000 budget may be only 2/3rds bike if you're not a cyclist already.

By whom ????

For me, entry level is the cheapest bike (at an LBS) for your riding style. It means someone doesn't have a lot of $$$ to spend on a bike right away and/or they aren't sure whether they want to commit that kind of money to a bike.

People will buy high tech thingies like full suspension because they can be convinced they need it. But people who buy $900 hardtails when there are functionally equivalent (for a parking lot) cheapos next to it ($300) typically know what they are doing. If they know what they're doing, they're not entry level. They are an experienced buyer that discriminates between low level and high level parts.

"entry level" I would define as a bike that would allow you to enter the sport on a recreational level, say 3 or 4 off light off road rides per month, without difficulty with reliability and performance. That said, I think you would need to spend $500 at least, and that will give you a bike that, if you decide you like mtn biking, will need upgrading or replacement within a year. $1000 will get you a nice bike, mid level, $2000 and up is upper level.

More BS. How often you ride your bike has nothing to do with how much it costs. This is a misconception that i held as well when i started. Many told me that a Trek 4300 should only be ridden a few times a week for short rides, blah, blah, blah.

I've got 8,000 miles on one 4300 and over 5000 on the other and I ride virtually every day, and have for the last couple of years. I've ridden in 100 F weather, snow, rain, -20 F windchilll and not one single problem mechanically except for normal wear and tear and flats.

A bike is basically a frame with a bunch of components hanging on it. A $300 mountain bike is just as capable of riding very far and often as a $3,000 bike. That is a secret, but i'll let it out. The only difference is that a $300 bike may have components that are slightly better, but they will wear out just the same. Trust me, i've worn out quite a few things up to this point. Even better stuff.

Interestingly, i bought a minivan last May for $14,000. Since that time i have spent an extra $1500 on repairs. So with payments since then and repairs, I have spent almost $4,000 on it and driven it probably about 8,000 miles.

So the Trek 4300 was $350 new and i've gotten the same mileage out of it. ANd have never had a break down the way i have with the stupid van! Entry level means your bike didn't cost as much as someone else. No direct connection to how durable the bike is.

Just to add to that a little bit. I think it's definitely true what Ranger is saying that it's perfectly fine to buy a "cheaper" bike and ride it a lot. But where cost might matter for how much you ride is if you buy a $2-3,000 bike to only ride once or twice a month. It's probably safe to say you don't need such an expensive bike then unless you have some special circumstances.

Ranger, I've been wondering this for a while. Do you still ride both of those 4300's or have you just had two? If you still ride both I was just curious why you had two of the same model. No offense intended, I was just curious if you just liked the model that much or what?

By that reasoning, the professional teams could save a lot of money by having their riders ride rockhoppers, or trek 4300's with alivio components.. after all they perform and last just as long.

I agree with Ranger, for the most part. After a certain relatively low price point, the money spent is on lessening weight. Sometimes the superlight stuff is just as durable, but more often than not, it isn't.

No, racers are at a level of skill and conditioning where the weight of the equipment is a significant factor. For the casual rider, it's not. If/when it does, then that's the point where you decide if a hobby is worth the larger investment. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Buying a cheaper bike up-front makes that decision less painful.

I think it is perfectly fine for someone to buy an entry level bike and ride the crap out of it, and continue buying entry level bikes if they want. But to try to say that entry level parts and frames perform the same as high end parts and frames is crazy.

Actually sometimes i wonder the same thing. I think i have some of Noah's genetics because for some reason i like things in two's. When i was a complete noob after i tried a bike from Target (schwinn ranger-hence my name) I went and bought a Trek 4300 at my LBS. I liked it and obviously road it a lot.

Then about 6 months later i bought another used 4300 off of ebay. Why? Looking back I know why i did, but probably it was flawed reasoning. I have been in the office equipment repair business for about 15 years. It is a MAJOR advantage to have many like models around for swapping parts, comparing normal operation etc. I assumed by buying the same model of bike i would be able to learn how to work on one by observing the other, swapping parts etc.

So has it turned out that way and been a huge advantage? Probably not. But there have been some advantages like having the same wheelsets so i can swap them, etc. Plus i used to split the time between them more to equalize the milege and wear. I wear out a lot of chains etc. and riding two bikes, helps. But since i went clipless last summer, I have found it better to leave platforms on my older 4300 so i have a bike at the ready for a jaunt around the block with the kid, or to ride to work with work shoes, etc.

So, i guess that is the LONG answer to your question. No real good reason for anyone to do what i did. Just one of those things.

To address the issue at hand a bit more, I knew somebody would bring up the racing issue. I'm glad you did. Racing is the primary driving force behind expensive bikes, not durability. In fact many expensive racing parts have very little durability, or at least they don't last very long. THey are designed to be light and fast, which sometimes means they wear quickly. Tires are a good example of this. RAce tires wear out quickly and are more expensive.

My earlier post was addressing the comment that an entry level bike should only be ridden a couple times a week on light trails. I called BS, because it is. Price has nothing to do with how often or how far you can ride your bike. It has a lot to do with how fast you can make it go.

More expensive bikes are lighter which makes them faster. Usually not as much faster as most people would think but still faster. Simple physics dictate the why of this. So to summarize, ENTRY LEVEL does NOT mean only for recreational occasional riding. Basically it means heavier.

Who said they "perform the same?" I guess it depends on what your definition of "perform" is. My post was in reply to a post that said you should only ride an entry level bike occasionally on light off road stuff.

I have ridden my entry level bikes for thousands of miles riding virtually every day. They have performed well at this task. An expensive racing bike would likely perform the same task. You might say that if i had ridden a Trek 8500 over the same miles and terrain that it would have "performed" better. Then again, i would have to ask "performed what?" They both performed the same result, which in this case is about 13,000 miles on dirt and gravel roads.

You can argue whether one performed the task better than the other but you can't argue that either can't do the task. I for one can vouch that the entry level bikes can perform the task. Again, it really depends on what your goal is. If you want to get to work fast, you might do well with a Ferrari. If you just want to get to work, you might do just as well with a Celica.

There was someone on here that posted that their alivio rear derailleur took like 15 seconds to shift one gear, and they thought that was normal. When you ride a bike that is, well, "entry level", you get used to things like 15 second shifts. So maybe you just don't realize the difference. Does the shift still occur in the alivio, yes, but to me that is not something I would tolerate because I have been riding bikes that shift in 1 second or less. The frustration involved with cheap bikes takes some of the fun out of the experience for me. If you like your trek 4300, good for you, keep buying them. I don't think that you would be making the same comments however if someone were to give you a $3000 bike.

It all depends on whether you think shifting a little faster is worth $2,400 though. To many people it's really not. Or if you think it's worth buying a better derailleur which certainly isn't the cost of a new bike.

The derailleur was just one example. I agree that to many people the extra cash isn't worth it, or doesn't exist anyway. I am only trying to say that, in general, higher end parts perform better and last longer. Justifying a $400 bike is fine, but you can't say it is the same quality as a $1000 bike. I've owned a cheap mtn bike, and I have never regretted moving on to a better bike.