Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
30-06.-2004, 05:30 AM
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
treks
Are treks suitable for mountain biking as compared to the
expesive bikes? Kerry kjkerr at cvty.com |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 05:30 AM
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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. |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 05:30 AM
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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 |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 05:45 AM
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
"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! |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 06:00 AM
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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 |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 07:15 AM
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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) |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 08:30 AM
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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. |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 10:00 AM
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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) |
|
|
|
30-06.-2004, 12:45 PM
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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. |
|
|
|
01-07.-2004, 03:15 AM
|
#10 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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 |
|
|
|
01-07.-2004, 03:15 AM
|
#11 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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. |
|
|
|
01-07.-2004, 03:46 AM
|
#12 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
"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! |
|
|
|
01-07.-2004, 04:15 AM
|
#13 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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 |
|
|
|
01-07.-2004, 08:20 AM
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: treks
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) |
|
|
Linear Mode
