treks

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
expesive bikes?

Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com

kjkerr wrote:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?
>
> Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com

No they are not suitable. You need even cheaper bikes in
order to mountain bike. Check out the Huffy's at Walmart.
Only $99 bikes are mountain bikes.

On 2004-06-29, kjkerr penned:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?

Is $4800 expensive enough for you? If so, you could look at
a Trek Fuel
100.

Treks come in a variety of prices, from really cheap to
really expensive. What *model* of Trek were you looking at?

--
monique

"kjkerr" <kjkerr@cvty.com> wrote in message
news:10e3hsk2tmice02@corp.supernews.com...
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?

I hope you're wearing your flame retardent suit...

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

kjkerr wrote:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?
>
> Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com

Yes and no, depending on what Trek and what "expensive" bike
it's being compared to.

Matt

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:48:35 -0400, kjkerr wrote:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?

<sarcasm>No, they've just managed to be one of the top-
selling mountain bike brands just because of their cool
name.</sarcasm>

That question is so open-ended and flame-prone that its hard
to tell if you're even serious in asking it.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail
address, at least)

kjkerr wrote:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?

Did you see last year's Tour?

Bill "meaning unsure" S.

kjkerr <kjkerr@cvty.com> wrote:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?
>
> Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com

Drum roll for JD! :)

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

kjkerr wrote:
> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
> expesive bikes?
>
> Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com
>
>
Seems like the Trek Fuel 100 I just read a review of was
about $4900 and yes, Treks great. Even cheaper ones,
like mine.

Carla A-G wrote:
> "kjkerr" <kjkerr@cvty.com> wrote in message
> news:10e3hsk2tmice02@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
>>expesive bikes?
>
>
> I hope you're wearing your flame retardent suit...

Damn, I hate dyslexia. I first read that as "I hope you're
wearing your flame suit retard." ;-)

Shawn

Shawn Curry wrote:
> Carla A-G wrote:
>> "kjkerr" <kjkerr@cvty.com> wrote in message
>> news:10e3hsk2tmice02@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to
>>> the expesive bikes?
>>
>>
>> I hope you're wearing your flame retardent suit...
>
> Damn, I hate dyslexia. I first read that as "I hope you're
> wearing your flame suit retard." ;-)
>
> Shawn

I think the message is the same either way.

"Shawn Curry" <speriodthespiceorcomb@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:Q7qdnU7UpptdnH7d4p2dnA@bresnan.com...
> Damn, I hate dyslexia. I first read that as "I hope you're
> wearing your flame suit retard." ;-)

I usually don't insult people unless I know them well
enough :-)

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

jem <jmessick@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:<GhqEc.72734$2o2.4899536@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> kjkerr wrote:
> > Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to
> > the expesive bikes?
> >
> > Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com
> >
> >
> Seems like the Trek Fuel 100 I just read a review of was
> about $4900 and yes, Treks great. Even cheaper ones,
> like mine.

This is funny. The bottom line is that it all starts at the
frame. You could put XTR on a walgoose and it would still
be a walgoose, albeit a $4900 walgoose. There's one born
every minute...

JD

JD <dij@usafcct.com> wrote:
> jem <jmessick@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:<GhqEc.-
> 72734$2o2.4899536@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>> kjkerr wrote:
>>> Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to
>>> the expesive bikes?
>>>
>>> Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com
>>>
>>>
>> Seems like the Trek Fuel 100 I just read a review of was
>> about $4900 and yes, Treks great. Even cheaper ones,
>> like mine.
>
> This is funny. The bottom line is that it all starts at
> the frame. You could put XTR on a walgoose and it would
> still be a walgoose, albeit a $4900 walgoose. There's one
> born every minute...
>
> JD

<cymbalcrash.wav>

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)