mountain bike question

**Moose423956** · 15 August 2008, 11:08

Originally posted by richy_rich View Post

Am gonna get myself a mountain bike and have a budget of max £400 - the bike will not be used for jumping off cliffs or anything as energetic!

I'm wanting a hardtail with disc hydraulic brakes and these are the best three I can find.

Cannondale F6 Disc 2008 Mountain Bike £359.99
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/...-bike-ec000216

Scott Aspect 45 2008 Mountain Bike £359.99
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/...-bike-ec001263

GT Avalanche 2.0 Disc 2008 Mountain Bike £399.99
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/...-bike-ec000667

Anyone have any other recommendations apart from spending the £400 in the local lapdancing bar instead

Should I wait till the September sales as I noticed a few places are discounting the bikes already.

Can I get the bike cheaper through any employer scheme or if you have a mate who works at a bike shop

Cheers,

RR.

I'll sell you mine for £300. It's probably worth about £20, so it's a real bargain. HTH

**TimberWolf** · 15 August 2008, 11:10

Very pretty bikes, though I question whether these beautiful bikes performance is significantly greater than my brothers old Halfords el cheapo steel frame and knackered brakes jobbie?

**Spacecadet** · 15 August 2008, 11:33

Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post

Very pretty bikes, though I question whether these beautiful bikes performance is significantly greater than my brothers old Halfords el cheapo steel frame and knackered brakes jobbie?

obviously you're not a cyclist

I had the GT avalanche, when I tried to get back into mountain biking a few years ago.
The Disc brakes were crap in the wet, mine were cabled, rather than hydraulic, although given that its the same brand I can't see there being much of a difference. Even the "wet" brake pads managed to wear out in half a day after making an astonishingly feeble attempt to slow me on downhills in the peaks.

Have you looked at the Orange bikes?
I had the P7 (about 12 years ago) it was a stunning bike. The frame setup was superb on the really technical and the rocky and fast. No suprise really as the bikes are designed in the Lake District
http://www.orangebikes.co.uk/2008bikes/p7-pro.php

Unfortunately it might be a bit over your target price

**TimberWolf** · 15 August 2008, 11:50

Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post

obviously you're not a cyclist

I had the GT avalanche, when I tried to get back into mountain biking a few years ago.
The Disc brakes were crap in the wet, mine were cabled, rather than hydraulic, although given that its the same brand I can't see there being much of a difference. Even the "wet" brake pads managed to wear out in half a day after making an astonishingly feeble attempt to slow me on downhills in the peaks.

I cycle a bit for leisure, and more so for other purposes recently, for example for getting into the town centre, which is a nightmare by car. My knackered old mountain bike is fit for this purpose (especially after I put a new chain on it). It's also great on grass and track. An expensive bike would make little difference IMO. Obviously a highly sprung bike would be better for very adverse hilly conditions, but its rare I need that.

A bike is basically two wheels and a chain to transfer power from legs to road. If your wheels spin freely and there's no other undue frictional losses (which are likely to be way less than air resistance), a pretty bike will make very little difference except in a not to be underestimated physiological way or to boost your ego or to attract girls.

**DaveB** · 15 August 2008, 12:37

The biggest advantages the more expensive bikes have are weight and durability.

The more expensive the bike the lighter it will be, making it easier to ride longer and the more durable and reliable the components like brakes, gear sets and bearings will be.

Yes, you can you a Bike Shaped Object for less than £200 that will look the part, but it wont last long and will be hard work to ride any real distances.

Of course there is no point spending £1000+ on something for the daily half hour commute unless you want to be flash and( try to ) impress the girlies.

**the_duderama** · 15 August 2008, 12:40

Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post

a pretty bike will make very little difference except in a not to be underestimated physiological way or to boost your ego or to attract girls.

No, you don't know what you're talking about, so don't bother.

I had a cheaper mountain bike a few years back, well it was a low end specialised so not that cheap (£200 i think), was ok, had v brakes, full shamono gear, except the hubs. Was quite a heavy frame etc etc. But the rims ended up rubbing through, the cables would just keep on stretching, meaning the brakes needed re-adjusting, the hubs were rubish as i was having to contantly replace the bearings & grease, etc etc.

Got a higer end specialised (because i know they are very good bikes - £800) with hydrolic breaks, decent rims, higher spec'ed shamano gear, shamano hubs, better frame etc. Now the difference was clear from the off, better control due to better frame gemotry, and i've not needed to do any serious maintainence since i got it (4 years ago now) and i've probably riden it 3 or 4 times further than the original.

So in conculsion these bikes are not just pretty, but they will perform better and last longer.

**TimberWolf** · 15 August 2008, 12:58

Originally posted by DaveB View Post

The biggest advantages the more expensive bikes have are weight and durability.

My brothers old bike is ancient and works okay given the age. The important bit, the frame is okay anyway. The wheels wobble a bit on their axes which I'm not sure is within a normal range but it rolls okay, and the brakes squeal and stay on after they are used unless I manually open them again, but brakes are cheap to replace if it was anything more than a minor inconvenience.

The more expensive the bike the lighter it will be, making it easier to ride longer and the more durable and reliable the components like brakes, gear sets and bearings will be.

Rolling resistance goes linear with weight, meaning if you double the weight drag doubles. But shaving 10Kg off a 20Kg bike won't double the overall performance, it will only fractionally alter it since the rider is by far the heaviest part. There is a gain form having a lighter bike, especially when going up hill, but you also have to weigh up whether a large cost is justified for fractional gains.

Yes, you can you a Bike Shaped Object for less than £200 that will look the part, but it wont last long and will be hard work to ride any real distances.

I don't see why a solid steel frame shouldn't last longer than a bike designed to work closer to its operating tolerances.

**TimberWolf** · 15 August 2008, 13:13

Originally posted by the_duderama View Post

No, you don't know what you're talking about, so don't bother.
...
So in conculsion these bikes are not just pretty, but they will perform better and last longer.

If you look at the frictional losses you talk about, these are tiny in comparison to the major losses incurred due to rolling resistance and air resistance. Both of which could be minimised at little or no cost. The former is proportional to your weight in the main, and the latter to your riding position. In buying a £800 bike you are paying £700 more for fractional better performance.

mountain bike question