Decathlon

kevinscott

Ive been seeing alot of posts around stating that the RockRider bikes from Decathlon are quite good value for money. Looking at some, well being abit of a n00b at such things, Im not sure. Looking at the Rockrider Big RR 5.1 http://www.decathlon.co.uk/rockrider-bi ... 02060.html in theory looks like an exceptional deal with a Hardtail 29er. However looking closer, having V breaks and what looks like Grip shift Gears.

Is the The RockRider Big RR 5.3 worth the extra £130 quid?
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/rockrider-bi ... 02905.html

Or is it just about researching each part and what you can get and what you can live without...so confused!!

cooldad

And a really nasty fork. The 5.3 is worth the difference.

The Rookie

What do you intend to do with the bike? The 5.3 is much better than the 5.1, but only if you need it, for similar money the Voodoo Bantu is a better bike still with Hydraulic disc brakes an air forks.

Any particular reason you're looking at 29ers?

thelonegroover

The Beginner wrote:

What do you intend to do with the bike? The 5.3 is much better than the 5.1, but only if you need it, for similar money the Voodoo Bantu is a better bike still with Hydraulic disc brakes an air forks.

Any particular reason you're looking at 29ers?

I think 29ers are generally more stable and easier to ride. Some 26ers are easier to ride than others, but 29ers are easier still. (At least the ones I've ridden). Watch Halfords for more choice soon.

felix.london

Easier to ride?..what does that even mean?

Like, no stabilisers easy? :?

The Rookie

I think the despeccing and upweighting at this price point for a 29er is the wrong move personally.....I find 29er harder to ride offroad, they need better technique.

felix.london

yep - at that price point you definitely wanna be looking at a 26" hardtail.

As for the 29er's are easier to ride comment - just ignore it.

thelonegroover

I mean they are more stable, you tend to sit more between the wheels than on the wheels as on a 26er. Also 29ers do roll over rocks and the like easier. They are slightly heavier but thats not really noticable.

However, you can choose to ignore my and most other riders first hand experience if you wish. Note, the vast majority of people who have tried 29ers, prefer them.

lostboysaint

Thelonegroover wrote:

I mean they are more stable, you tend to sit more between the wheels than on the wheels as on a 26er. Also 29ers do roll over rocks and the like easier. They are slightly heavier but thats not really noticable.

However, you can choose to ignore my and most other riders first hand experience if you wish. Note, the vast majority of people who have tried 29ers, prefer them.

You sound like the magazines!! What a load of old bollocks. (Oh, and I have both a 29er and a 26!)

thelonegroover

Best advice as alway,s is to try before you buy. Is someone going to argue with that?

lostboysaint

Thelonegroover wrote:

Best advice as alway,s is to try before you buy. Is someone going to argue with that?

I can't imagine anyone would argue with that. Shame you put all the other rubbish in your other posts in the meantime.

MrM

Thelonegroover wrote:

you tend to sit more between the wheels than on the wheels as on a 26er

Get a geometry lesson

The Rookie

Stability also means slower steering, harder to get it to do what you want, more weight to manual/hop, all that's a help?

I stand by the fact that having tried a few at this and better pricepoints, at this price point the weight and inertia may hade physical stability but make it harder to ride as it's stable when you want to deflect it as well.

thelonegroover

MrM wrote:

Thelonegroover wrote:

you tend to sit more between the wheels than on the wheels as on a 26er

Get a geometry lesson

Get a physics lesson

Chunkers1980

Eh? Where you sit depends on the design, not the size of the wheels. Keep digging.

thelonegroover

Assuming the bottom bracket is the same distance from the ground, on a 29er the bottom bracket is lower in relation to the wheel axis. This in turn makes the saddle lower. The front is fitted with flat bar and short stem to counteract the slower steering. This has the effect of sitting you more between the wheels than on top of the wheels. Of course there will always be good and bad design, but I maintain, a good 29er should be smoother and more stable. Agreed, they might be slightly heavier and less manoeuvrable.

lostboysaint

Thelonegroover wrote:

Assuming the bottom bracket is the same distance from the ground, on a 29er the bottom bracket is lower in relation to the wheel axis. This in turn makes the saddle lower. The front is fitted with flat bar and short stem to counteract the slower steering. This has the effect of sitting you more between the wheels than on top of the wheels. Of course there will always be good and bad design, but I maintain, a good 29er should be smoother and more stable. Agreed, they might be slightly heavier and less manoeuvrable.

You've read all the articles, probably looked at all the magic diagrams (in fact I'm surprised you haven't linked one up here) and yet you still don't understand.

The bottom bracket and saddle height have NOTHING to do with wheel size. They will be designed to offer a ground clearance that will be similar to a 26" wheeled bike. This means that the BB and the saddle will be at the same or a very similar height to a 26" wheeled bike.

Your argument, plucked from badly written magazine bullshit, is that you sit "in" a 29er because the line of the BB is lower than a line drawn between the hub centres (front to back).

As I said, I own and ride both. My 29er HT is heavier than my 26" wheeled hardtail despite having exactly the same running gear, with the exception of wheels and fork. I can tell you that they steer much more slowly and are heavier. That doesn't stop me riding one for certain types of riding and using a 26" for other. One is not "better" than the other as you keep insisting and certainly in my experience there isn't a mass exodus of "those that have tried them don't come back".

The Rookie

PUT THE SHOVEL DOWN....

1/ Wheel centre is irrelevant, a bike tilts over the contact point of tyre on ground.
2/ A flat bar has no effect on speed of steering, width does, it's flat to keep bar height about the same as a 26er on risers.
3/ The stem on that bike isn't short, it's normal length (as in for a 26er as well)
4/ So you don't sit more between the wheels

Franjkly, you're making yourself look a bigger twit by not realising and apologising for being a twit in the first place.

MrM

Thelonegroover wrote:

Get a physics lesson

If you're going to insist on digging holes perhaps get some shares in JCB

kevinscott

Well, I am certainly glad I have started a bit of an argument. Nice to see the passion haha.

For one of the initial questions I was asked, depends what I wanted to do with it.
Well, essentially is get out riding build a bit of fitness and visit the trails at Glentress and Carron Valley up here and Scotland and have a bit of fun on those. I was just thinking a 29er might make the ride abit more comfortable. The Genesis Mantle (aka piece of crap) I hired on Monday there was a normal 26" wheel which seemed fine to me, so I have kind of gone of the idea of a 29er as I think the wheel would be just to big but oddly...still tempted.

I think I am quite set on getting out of the Rockriders but which one

The Rockrider 5.3
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/rockrider-53 ... 06682.html

or

The Rockrider Big RR 5.3
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/rockrider-bi ... 02905.html

I suppose I should really read the spec's on each of them. However, from looking at the conversation here. I think most of you know a HELL a lot more of the spec's of these bikes than what I do

Enjoy

Kevin

lostboysaint

Can you eek your budget up just a bit? Those are both nice enough frames but cable disc brakes are a bit low rent, especially if you're going to do the sort of trail riding you're talking about.

Sticking with the BTwin I'd take a serious look at the Rockrider 8.1 as it has a Rockshox Recon fork, SRAM X7 groupset and Avid Elixir 3 hydraulic disc brakes. That's a serious improvement and a very, very good bike for just £200 more.

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/rockrider-81-2012-mountain-bike-grey-id_8168918.html

felix.london

+1 to that ^^

Sounds like you're gonna be riding some proper stuff. I'd either beg, borrow, steal or just save up the extra couple of hundred for the 8.1

kevinscott

I get what you guys are saying.....Dont get me wrong I could afford a very good bike but just wanting to restrict myself considering my last bike I got 6 years ago and was the worst Opollo that Halfords could give me.

I am trying to look at bikes at the £300-£350 mark. Once you go up to over £500 it seems to open another level of bikes I have not looked it.

Im guessing the 8.0 isnt worth it as a alternative?

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/rockrider-80 ... 06681.html

lostboysaint

What we're saying is that you don't NEED to go beyond the 8.1 - the level of spec that it has is incredible for a £500 bike so you don't need to spend more but you're getting more than £200 more value over the bikes that you're looking at. (Have a look at the price of a Rockshox Recon fork and a SRAM X7 groupset!)

It's an excellent bike that will really help you get the best from your riding.

kevinscott

Ok, no worries, thanks to all who has given there two pence peace on this! Helped a lot actually!!

Just trying to get the biggest bang for my buck as they say......

Cheers again

thelonegroover

lostboysaint wrote:

Thelonegroover wrote:

Assuming the bottom bracket is the same distance from the ground, on a 29er the bottom bracket is lower in relation to the wheel axis. This in turn makes the saddle lower. The front is fitted with flat bar and short stem to counteract the slower steering. This has the effect of sitting you more between the wheels than on top of the wheels. Of course there will always be good and bad design, but I maintain, a good 29er should be smoother and more stable. Agreed, they might be slightly heavier and less manoeuvrable.

You've read all the articles, probably looked at all the magic diagrams (in fact I'm surprised you haven't linked one up here) and yet you still don't understand.

The bottom bracket and saddle height have NOTHING to do with wheel size. They will be designed to offer a ground clearance that will be similar to a 26" wheeled bike. This means that the BB and the saddle will be at the same or a very similar height to a 26" wheeled bike.

Your argument, plucked from badly written magazine bullshit, is that you sit "in" a 29er because the line of the BB is lower than a line drawn between the hub centres (front to back).

As I said, I own and ride both. My 29er HT is heavier than my 26" wheeled hardtail despite having exactly the same running gear, with the exception of wheels and fork. I can tell you that they steer much more slowly and are heavier. That doesn't stop me riding one for certain types of riding and using a 26" for other. One is not "better" than the other as you keep insisting and certainly in my experience there isn't a mass exodus of "those that have tried them don't come back".

I know the saddle and BB will be the same distance from the ground, but they will be lower in relation to the wheel axis. Lets forget about the theory, all I know is, I and lots of others find 29ers better to ride.

lostboysaint

Thelonegroover wrote:

I know the saddle and BB will be the same distance from the ground, but they will be lower in relation to the wheel axis. Lets forget about the theory, all I know is, I and lots of others find 29ers better to ride.

Why should we forget about the theory? Why don't you read it properly and understand it and then perhaps your arguments may be a little more educated and cohesive.

Your last sentence sums it up, it's your opinion. End of story. Don't embarrass yourself by claiming that "lots of others find 29ers better to ride" or pulling bullshit magazine quotes and tech articles out and applying them out of context and inappropriately.

The Rookie

What relevance is the 'wheel axis' (one presumes you actually mean the axles, the axis could mean anything!) though? A bike falls over based around the contact point on the ground, you could argue the 29er is less stable as it has a higher CoG.....

thelonegroover

It's not just my opinion; it's the opinion of lots of riders who write in magazines.
Some members seem to be focusing on the wrong things here. Axis or Axle, CoG call it what you like, it doesn't really matter.
The fact is, almost every report written on comparing a 29er to a 26er, the 29er is more stable and rolls over bumps better.

lostboysaint

Oh it MUST be true then.

No, you're the one that keeps focussing on the wrong things, because you brought them up in the first place to support your argument, were promptly put back in your box by those that understand and now you're desperately trying to claw your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

It's not a fact at all. In FACT, why not go to last months What Mountain Bike and read their test, the one where the Saracen 26" wheeled bike beats the 29ers and read the conclusions.

You are an ignorant twat that's misleading others as you yourself has been misled. Now fuck off and do your damage elsewhere.

felix.london

Thelonegroover wrote:

It's not just my opinion; it's the opinion of lots of riders who write in magazines.

Like I just wrote on another thread;

felix.london wrote:

...The others (magazines) just seem to be trying to persuade everyone to change wheel size...

Don't believe everything you read. Magazines have their own agendas

But telling people that are after advice that "29er's are easier to ride" is just foolish...it's a meaningless and stupid statement as well as just not being true.