mugatu

After spending a few years in the ssfg and road forums, it becomes clear what gear is generally agreed to be approved by everyone as a good balance between price and performance.

For example, as road bikes go, people with $4k rigs still race crits on $1k cannondale caad9-5s because they're fantastically stiff and reasonable light, with shimano 105 groups that won't break and if you wipe out on them it's no biggie to replace things. Because of this, when you can buy one as an intermediate bike and ride it well into cat 3.

In the ssfg forum, everyone is pretty much in agreement that the mercier kilo tt from bd is a great bike especially at the price and there's really no need to upgrade anything other than the saddle until you've ridden the drivetrain or wheels into the ground after a few years.

If you're still reading, my question is whether there is such a bike here in the mtb forum, or whether the sheer diversity of riding types and conditions prevents similar consensus.

TwinCam

Yeah it's kinda like that.

ed 

MTB'ers aren't very agreeable. I think alot of it is b/c mountain biking is hard on equipment and each experienced rider has broken/worn out enough crap to know what works for them.


On a more agreeable note...

Nooblet bike of choice: Specialized Hardrock

junkyard

On a less agreeable note...

Specialized sucks.

ed 

mtnbiker66

woooooooooooot

mustang1

Specialized sucks..... Why?

roccobike

Because they make the best MTBs and these guys are jealous cause they don't own one.










Pass the popcorn please.

mbiker33

no im happy with my norco havoc 09

bikinfool

Specialized does suck, but they're everywhere and relatively cheap (unless you go for the full bling model, then you're screwed). Hell, all they can do is copy or buy other designs, they're pretty much useless on their own. Road bikes really don't have a lot to offer in terms of performance among various models compared to the specific uses of various mountain bikes...it's just different (how many different types of pavement are there?).

junkyard

Similar to the mathematical equation: a = a, no proof is necessary. Specialized = suck. Additionally, think of the philosophical statement: I think therefore I am. When related to Specialized, the statement would be: Specialized sucks therefore Specialized sucks. Trying to argue otherwise gets you nowhere. Next question, please.

Phantoj

I'm not a regular of this forum, but the Jamis Dakar seems to be well-liked as a good full-suspension rig for a nice price. (I don't have one)

tclong03

need more opinions than just two or three guys so far.

surreal

Internet forums in general tend to have their own brand of "conventional wisdom" and a team of jingo-parrots who will spew the accepted forum-specific conventional wisdom at each newbie who shows up. This fact is embarassing and shameful, but there are advantages to it.

If you've established some things like that on the road and FG forums, kudos to you. Seriously, that's a good thing. But, may i suggest that what falls under the umbrella of "mountain biking" are far more diverse disciplines than road racing or posenging.

The $1k cannondale example works very well for roadracers because the vast majority of roadracers want the same things from the bike. They're doing the same thing on the same set of admittedly disparate conditions. $1k is probably as cheap as you can go without cheaping out. 105 is as race-ready as you need while still being easy to tune/replace. The crack-n-fail frame is probably stiff enough, with decent all-around geometry, for competitive cycling. So, the jingo-parrot can repeat "caad9-5" or whatever to each newbie that says "I want to start racing competively. What's a good, cheap bike that'll carry me to cat3?"

Things are a bit more diverse on the FG side, because some folks want to do tricks (barspins), some want to just bling it out and be seen/scene, and others want to actually go to the velodrome. But, the bulk of the newbies you get on there are desperate cheapskates, and the BD mercier is super-cheap with reasonably decent components. It works for the cheapskates, but it probably isn't going to be great for tricks like a BMW or sword, and it probably isn't going to be very competitive at the track, and it sure as h3LL isn't gonna get anyone laid. Still, it's good enough for the penniless guy to start out riding fixed and get a clue, plus some taste of his own. And, for the record, FG-types (I ride fixed, so i feel qualified) are generally not so worried about performance as they are about fashion, velodrome folks being the exception. But how often do guys with real track aspirations come to the FG forum and stay for more than 2 minutes?

Which brings us to the trail. MTB is a diverse discipline. We all ride in remarkably different ways, with markedly different preferences, on some very disparate surfaces. My trails on the coastal plains of NJ are different from the stuff ppl will encounter very close by in the appalachians of PA. Plus, i'm fat and lazy and curmudgeonly. I fear suspension. My needs and preferences are way different from the next guy's. So, if we all "agreed" that the conventional wisdom for the drooling newbie was the BikeBrandX 5000turbo, and the jingo-parrots starting telling each newbie to get the BBX5gTurbo, a very significant proportion of the newbies would be sorely disappointed.

And, the contentious DBs who populate this forum would needle the parrots endlessly.

So, yeah, i don't see it happening.

-rob

for the record, yeah, specialized sucks, but i do want an early rockhopper anyway, to ride to pubs