Forum home Mountain biking forum MTB general

decathlon btwin rockrider, any good?

kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
edited July 2010 in MTB general
hi all

i am seriously considering getting back to mountain biking, i have not done it properly in years now, i have had some bikes in between but one was a knackered one so was uncomfortable and was not happy riding it, and the other one was a trials bike, but i just did not get used to that so i sold that, my last proper bike i had was a cannondale chase and that is going back about 5 years i think

so i will defiantly have rust when i properly get back to proper mountain biking again, and i hope that is soon, but i need to know what i am buying is right for me, everything so far has been too expensive for me, because i am unemployed i want a bike as cheap as possible, but for the bike to be decent at the same time, most days me and my partner are stuck indoors all day doing not much so mountain biking would help us

i have been looking at apollo even though i know from my experience they are rubbish, well they used to be, not sure if they improved or not, and looked at other shops that have bike brands i have never heard of, and was looking on decathlon the other day, and noticed they had some mountain bikes, they have a rockrider here http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/rockrider ... -88609559/ and they have a more expensive rockrider here http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/rockrider ... -25268104/ not sure why that is more expensive though as the more expensive one has a steel frame and the cheap one has a aluminium frame, so that is strange, what do people think about that?

but the main thing is, i want it for riding on streets most of the time, i live in a city not far from london, about a 1 hour bike ride and would occasionally like to ride to london and occasionally go over a forest or a park and have a nice ride through a forest or park

not sure what else to say but i hope i have said enough and hope i have not said too much

hope to hear from some of you soon

thank you
My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you

Posts

  • BigJimmyBBigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    My first bike when getting back to riding was a Rockrider 9.1.

    I think they are greast value for money.

    That said, at the money you are looking to spend, you might do better to go the 2nd hand route and get more for your money.
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    i think i would rather get a new bike this time, not sure why, possibly all the hassle or something like that

    so if i am not going to buy second hand, what i am looking at is good?

    and by the way, why is the more expensive rockrider have a steel frame, but the cheaper one has an aluminium frame, you may have no idea, but a rough guess would be nice to hear

    thank you for the reply :twisted:
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • Ali82Ali82 Posts: 9
    The Rockrider 6.0 is more expensive because it is a full suspension, for what you are looking for don't even bother considering it. It is unnecessary, more to go wrong and will weigh a tonne. I'm not familiar with the 5.1 but looking at the spec I think you will struggle to find more bike for your money and it looks perfectly suited to the type of riding you want it for too. If you are looking for more off road use and could afford a bit more then the 5.2 is a cracking bike for the money.
  • KiblamsKiblams Posts: 2,423
    and by the way, why is the more expensive rockrider have a steel frame, but the cheaper one has an aluminium frame, you may have no idea, but a rough guess would be nice to hear

    The steel frame has rear suspension (A very basic spring that if you ever plan on pedalling will be more of a hindrance than a advantage to you)

    The rockrider 5 would be fine for riding on the roads, but I must ask what sort of offroad riding you are planning?
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    Can you stretch to the 5.2? This is a superb bike for the cash, and an award winner. Well worth the extra 40 quid, I'd happily ride one of these.
  • KiblamsKiblams Posts: 2,423
    supersonic wrote:
    Can you stretch to the 5.2? This is a superb bike for the cash, and an award winner. Well worth the extra 40 quid, I'd happily ride one of these.

    +1. The wife still happily chucks hers around trail centres every week :D
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    i can not see the 5.2 on decathlon, i see it only on btwin, but if 5.2 was available in a decathlon store like the 5.1 is i would test both and seriously consider both i think

    i am about 6 foot 3 or 4 by the way, would it be XL that i need?
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • KiblamsKiblams Posts: 2,423
    i can not see the 5.2 on decathlon, i see it only on btwin, but if 5.2 was available in a decathlon store like the 5.1 is i would test both and seriously consider both i think

    i am about 6 foot 3 or 4 by the way, would it be XL that i need?

    Yeah i would suggest at least a large. Riding them up and down the store, they will feel very similar, it is only when you take them (the 5.1 and 5.2) offroad and get them muddy that you would start to realise why the 5.2 is worth the extra £40. Which is why it is important to know what sort of offroad riding you are planning to try to avoid disapointment down the line.

    You can find the 5.2 range here:

    http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/sport-mtb-3962638/

    Hope that helps.
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    oh thank you so much, lovely reply

    just had a quick look at the 5.2 on decathlon, looks great, most of the time my riding will be around city though, i guess possibly about 80% city 10% park and 10% forest through forests such as hainault forest, you may have never heard of it, but i guess all forests are not much different in some kind of way but you can see some photos of the forest here http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/our- ... ?wood=5067

    photos are kind of poor, but that is hainault forest

    so as most of my riding would be city, would you still suggest the 5.2 rather than the 5.1? what would be some advantages, if you can think of any, if not that is cool

    are there any reviews of it, or has it just won awards? and what kind of awards by the way, just wondering :D
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • KiblamsKiblams Posts: 2,423
    So you have no desire to ride rock gardens and over huge routs at speed? The 5.1 would do fine for forest tracks with little by way of difficult obsticles, the full on trail centre experience may be unpleasant on it though.

    Rockrider 5.2 Review :wink:
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    I'd still get the 5.2. Much lighter, nice frame, 24 speed gears, half decent fork. Better than some bikes at twice the price.
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    i think i want that 5.2 now, what have you done to me :lol:

    and as for my partner, would you suggest a 5.1 for her, i will obviously be doing more stuff and going mad on the bike occasionally possibly, but i think she would be gentle with it most of the time and plus one of her knees is not in great condition so she is kind of limited on how mad or fast she could go i guess and she may possibly be limited on surfaces to ride on too because of her knee and being frightened :P

    so would you suggest a 5.2 for me and a 5.1 for her?
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • hbrashawhbrashaw Posts: 286
    that sounds good, but the 5.1 would be harder to pedal, as it's heavier, so she might struggle to keep up with you particurly as she has a bad knee.
  • BigJimmyBBigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    2x 5.2's will see you right for £400.

    I don't think you'll do better for the money and if looked after and regularly maintained, they serve you well.
  • PXR5PXR5 Posts: 203
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    2x 5.2's will see you right for £400.

    I don't think you'll do better for the money and if looked after and regularly maintained, they serve you well.

    Plus you'll have a complete set of spare parts handy in case you [email protected] something. :wink:

    (Though this is a bit unlikely as the 5.2 is damn good vfm)
    Every time I go out, I think I'm being checked out, faceless people watching on a TV screen.....
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    went to decathlon today in lakeside and had a good time testing out the bikes, only tested the 5.1 for about 1 minute i think :lol:

    went over to the 5.2 and thought, that looks awesome, i was just confused over what size to get though, i think i will be going for the XL but i am going to post photos of me on the bike so that i can hopefully get some other opinions but the store assistant and my partner and i think the XL as on the L it felt as if i was leaning over the handle bars more than i did with the XL and i think the XL felt more comfortable, but not sure in what way

    and with the L i could adjust my seat so my entire foot could touch the floor and can also be adjusted much higher too

    and with the XL with the seat to the lowest it could go, the front half of my foot could touch the ground but that was it

    so i hope to hear some opinions, do all of you think the XL is for me?

    here are some photos, please click them, i think you should all be able to tell what bike is the XL and what bike the L is, ignore the face, i did not plan to pose :lol:

    IMG_2184.JPG
    IMG_2182.JPG
    2.JPG
    1.JPG
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    Being able to touch the floor is actually irrelevant in bike sizing ;-). Have a read of our what size threads that are stickied at the top of the Buying forum.

    In the end it comes down to what feels best for you reach wise. You may want some clearance of your knackers above the top tube though.
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    had a read of that :D

    i do have some clearance above the top tube, my inside leg is 33-34" and i am about 6 foot 3-4

    i found this guide here http://www.btwincycle.com/EN/files/asse ... 0-2006.htm it shows in " and mm the different sizes of the different parts of the frame, and i think that is for the rockrider 5.2

    i do think i need the XL and so does my partner but i just want some more opinions from regular and or expert cyclists to put my mind to rest i guess is one was of saying it, so if you and some others could be so kind i would love if i could hear some personal opinions :D

    hope to hear from some people soon
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • atomic foxatomic fox Posts: 95
    only my opinion,you should have set the saddle height on both bikes to the height you would always be comfortable with ,ie with the ball of the foot touching the ground when seated. i was lucky enough to test some carbon bikes recently and where i currently ride a 20 inch frame the guy at felt bikes gave me an 18 inch frame to try and it felt spot on. i think the large frame would be fine but i think you should go back and try both again.
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    i did do that :D

    both saddles were set to the same height :D

    the XL saddle was the lowest the saddle could go and the saddle on the L had to be lifted to match the height of the other saddle on the XL

    did not feel much different, but felt as if i was leaning more towards the front of the bike rather than in a natural kind of way, but what do i now, i could be talking rubbish, but that is all i can think of to say about it
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • atomic foxatomic fox Posts: 95
    ok.usually most xc riders tend to have a lot of seat post showing and also when you do get bumped off the saddle as will happen , a decent standover clearance of the top tube will help as supersonic says. only you can tell what feels right for you though as after an hour or so on the bike you need to be comfertable and not cramped.have another try on both sizes.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    ie with the ball of the foot touching the ground when seated

    You don't size bikes that way. Seat height is based on relationship to the pedals, not the floor.

    but I agree that trying is the way forward.[/code]
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    well i guess i will try again when i next go there, i think that will possibly be when i go to buy the bike that i test the L and XL again, and i think i will go for the XL (at the moment i am leaning towards the XL more)

    what would you do if you were same height as me and so on supersonic, what would you go for? apart from testing them, just a rough guess of what you would go for will do :twisted:
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • underdogunderdog Posts: 292
    atomic fox wrote:
    only my opinion,you should have set the saddle height on both bikes to the height you would always be comfortable with ,ie with the ball of the foot touching the ground when seated. .

    The seat hight should relate to your leg position on the pedals not the floor :?:
  • WappygixerWappygixer Posts: 1,396
    If you can afcford the extra then the 5.2 is by far the better bike.I'm not knocking the Five at all but it is at the end of the day a leisure bike and not intended for more than a canal tow path.
    The 5.2 is Decathlons entry level mtb designed to take a little more rough and tumble.The biggest advantage is the wheels on the 5.2 as these are so much stronger than the Five.
    I service and work on both bikes all day in the Stockport workshop and time after time my money would go on the 5.2 for the little extra.
    Also for your height I'd go for the extra large, the large may feel a little to cramped after a while.
  • kevcampbellkevcampbell Posts: 125
    Wappygixer wrote:
    If you can afcford the extra then the 5.2 is by far the better bike.I'm not knocking the Five at all but it is at the end of the day a leisure bike and not intended for more than a canal tow path.
    The 5.2 is Decathlons entry level mtb designed to take a little more rough and tumble.The biggest advantage is the wheels on the 5.2 as these are so much stronger than the Five.
    I service and work on both bikes all day in the Stockport workshop and time after time my money would go on the 5.2 for the little extra.
    Also for your height I'd go for the extra large, the large may feel a little to cramped after a while.

    nice reply, thank you

    well i will defiantly be getting the 5.2 as i decided after testing it, i am in love with the 5.2 :lol:

    and another one to say XL, so 3 people have said XL so far, the more people say it the better as that will raise something in me that will make me think i am defiantly choosing the right size

    thank you for the reply and take care :P
    My blog: http://kevincampbellsblog.blogspot.com
    Follow my biking journeys and my path in photography and you will also be able to read about much more too including reviews, and all sorts of random rubbish that may amuse or interest you
  • atomic foxatomic fox Posts: 95
    underdog wrote:
    atomic fox wrote:
    only my opinion,you should have set the saddle height on both bikes to the height you would always be comfortable with ,ie with the ball of the foot touching the ground when seated. .

    The seat hight should relate to your leg position on the pedals not the floor :?:[/quote then i think the position of your legs on the pedals will need explaining to determine seat height. with the crank arms in the vertical position ,your leg having a slight bend in the knee on the lowest pedal works for me. maybe someone can explain to the op the right way to check this before he sizes the bikes again.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    Yes, usually the best position is to put the pedal at its lowest point, and with your foot on the pedal a 20-30 degrree bend in the knee. Floor doesn't come into, except for maybe kids bikes. Bottom bracket heights can vaty so much.
Sign In or Register to comment.