Does the bike really matter?

2»

Comments

  • thaibog
    thaibog Posts: 271
    Back to the beginning of this thread...the rockhopper is a fast fast bike....

    when i borrow my mates 2000 model i leave many people behind...climbing is effortless on it..

    big damn thumbs up for the rockhopper
    http://thaibog.pinkbike.com/
  • Aux1
    Aux1 Posts: 865
    Well, I used to dream about 6" enduro monsters, but on the other hand I remembered the classic xc hardtails I admired before, and felt a little sad that they were "not enough!" anymore for fast riding and mad descents...

    But that's just balls... :lol: I entered a few races recently with my midrange HT and felt the rush all over again! High tech is all good, but there are far more things to worry about and more things to go wrong. IMO, you can't beat the beauty, reliability, versatility and simplicity of a regular, 4" xc hardtail. You can ride it anywhere, up and down, and you can still go scary fast. Going even faster on a DH monster would sound like suicide to me then! :D

    There was a guy on a full susser on a race, had a FOX Float R at the rear I think, and he sucked uphill! He then came with a simple HT and got quite better. Maybe a sort of platform or lockout would have helped him, but he beat his previous result with an entry level bike with Suntour forks and v-brakes. It's still a mountain bike, and it can still be ridden anywhere.

    I remember times when there were just mountain bikes... And we all used to admire how many stuff you can ride through with them!

    I think it's best to find a balance between the new tech (I just love the Oro hydraulics!) and old proven reliability like a nice hardtail.
    http://tinyurl.com/357krj The mud hog
  • Torres
    Torres Posts: 1,266
    I agree that it is a mix, but is down to the rider more than the ride.
    You can really notice a difference between an entry level bike and a halfords budget full sus, but after that most of it it down to the fitness of the rider. Apart from a few pounds saved, the difference will be minimal, maybe only worth a few minutes at best.
    The only thing i think may benefit it in a big way is the confidenc boost you'll get when you roll up on your shiney new bike, which may allow you to push yourself a little harder (without knowing it).
    What We Achieve In Life, Echoes In Eternity
  • dunnnooo
    dunnnooo Posts: 900
    otherself wrote:
    The quality and condition of the groupset is more important than the frame.

    Not meaning to lower the tone too much, but that is complete and utter bullshit. The single biggest factor in how a bike rides is the frame, followed by forks and tyres (in my 'humble' opinion).

    I think, back on topic, that there's too many variables to say in any way at all how much a rider should be spending on a bike, for example your level of experience, local trails, amount of time spent riding, whether you race or just ride, what type of riding you do, how many bikes you own, what type of bike you think you need, and even the manufacturer of the bike. They will all make a difference, and as a result no one is ever going to agree about it.

    On the bike vs rider debate, I think it's a case of each relying on the other. A good rider cannot do well at a high level on a cheap bike, in any discipline. They can, however, do well at a local level. A good bike with a bad rider cannot do well at a high level with a crap rider. They may do well at a local level.
    Anyone, however, can and should be allowed to have fun riding any bike on any terrain suitable for that bike; I see no point in frowning on people who aren't professional racers but have an immense bike. Biking is, after all, about fun; if people get their kicks from having all the gear then why the hell shouldn't they get it? Same goes for the single speeders.
    I'd give my right hand to be ambi-dextrous
  • formerlyknownasbonj
    formerlyknownasbonj Posts: 483
    I agree with all that dunnooo. I get the impression that there's a distinct bit of pretence going on with the SS/rigid brigade. They like the simplicity of it, hardly anybody would argue that that's a nice thing. But it's as if they somehow want to block out the advantages of suspension and gears from their mind, and pretend that they only add weight and something to fiddle with. My attitude is : 'well, i can see the advantages to SS/rigid, but don't delude yourself that they're more than they actually are'. I think if they could pretend that any given rider could ride a SS/fixed bike on any terrain just as well/fast as a geared/suspension bike, they would - but I don't think they're quite at that stage yet...
  • formerlyknownasbonj
    formerlyknownasbonj Posts: 483
    I also think, with regard to single-speed in particular, the staunch advocates of these bikes tell people and probably even delude themselves into the reason they have them in the first place, i.e. they say it's 'because of their simplicity and low maintenance requirement', whereas really it's to give them maximum 'cool' points for looking hard - 'look at me I'm so strong i don't even need gears to get up hills'...
  • supersonic
    supersonic Posts: 82,708
    About the frame and groupset: I disagree with dunnnooo to an extent, as you have to quantify what makes a 'good' and 'bad' frame. If its geometry, then you have many options with frames at all price points. You can often say what makes a good or bad fork or groupset, and ride feel can be subjective too. Given the geometry suits the rider, many people will have difficulty telling some frames apart. With sub 700 quid bikes the biggest infleunce on ride 'quality' is usually the forks and tyres. Take a 100 quid frame and stick 1000 quid of components on it, then a 1000 quid frame with 100 quids of parts (ie off a supermarket special) and see how they ride. OK a contrived example, but with other examples it can be seen too. A great frame means nothing if crap is hung off it.
    GT ZASKAR CARBON TEAM

    VOODOO CANZO

    Come and see me at https://www.facebook.com/biketyke/
  • Blundell
    Blundell Posts: 308
    yeah it damn well does, I'm gash on my scott and klein but immortal on my olod trek! :wink:
    Sh....itespeed http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1729687/
    Scott snail http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1801990/
    Klein bad attitude http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1802002/
  • sc0ttb88
    sc0ttb88 Posts: 33
    Great discussion and some good arguments here! I have been mountain biking now for three months and got myself a Diamond Back M05 out of Halfords simply to start me of. But now I'm totally addicted and putting in some serious mileage each week. I'm trying to up my fitness so I can start racing next year. I have seriously spent the past month reading tons of articles and magazines in the hope of finding the perfect bike for me to change to but there are so many different options and contrasting views like the ones in this thread that I just don't know what to go for!

    I have decided that I will stick with a hardtail as I want to learn the skills before going to full sus, just my personal preference. I know that people have said here that the bike doesn't really matter that much to a certain extent, but I have to say that I am finding it incredibly difficult to do steep hill climbs and bunny hops etc with my current bike. It's just too heavy! When I try to lift the handlebars at the front it's is so heavy and really have to throw myself back and pull hard at them to raise it. This in turn is causing me to become unstable on the bike! I've tried this on my friend's higher spec bike and it's a lot easier. It also has a cheap front disc brake which does not work well at all. I had even considered changing to a v brake to improve it but have decided to just change the bike to a better model.

    I was initially looking at spending £1350 but now I'm thinking that I could get a good hard tail for around £1000 or less that would make my riding much more enjoyable. Don't get me wrong - the DB is great for cycling basic trails and going through forest parks and costal routes but anything else or more technical is just too difficult 

    The bike only cost me £189 so can't complain too much but I've upgraded the tyres and some other bits and bobs but still, I don't think it is really up to the job of riding the more advanced XC trails…
  • Aux1
    Aux1 Posts: 865
    sc0ttb88 wrote:
    but there are so many different options and contrasting views like the ones in this thread that I just don't know what to go for!

    I have decided that I will stick with a hardtail as I want to learn the skills before going to full sus, just my personal preference.

    now I'm thinking that I could get a good hard tail for around £1000 or less that would make my riding much more enjoyable. Don't get me wrong - the DB is great for cycling basic trails and going through forest parks and costal routes but anything else or more technical is just too difficult

    The bike only cost me £189 so can't complain too much but I've upgraded the tyres and some other bits and bobs but still, I don't think it is really up to the job of riding the more advanced XC trails…

    Ohh, that's a REALLY cheap bike! :)
    I think you have a good plan. Get a very decent HT for 1000 GBP and enjoy it! Maybe you'll start to like it so much you'll want to stick with it for a long time...
    I'd get one with RS Reba or Fox F100 forks, LX to XT gear, excellent brakes (most important part IMO), not heavy, it would make for a really nice bike!

    And yes, keep the Diamondback for commuting, leasurely rides, the missus or something... :wink:
    http://tinyurl.com/357krj The mud hog

Categories