Clueless Newbie Seeks Bike

Quoted message said:

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I

could

Quoted message said:

ride without looking stupid i.e. small frame with about
2ft of saddle post sticking up from it. Also, I don't want
the tyres to be *too* fat because

in

Quoted message said:

the past I've found extra the rolling resistance a real
chore. Oh, and a comfy seat would be nice. Budget £300.

At 6ft 0ins and 23.5 stone, I bought a Carrera Kraken SE
from Halfords. It has served me well since April last year
and I've cycled over 100 miles on it both on and off road.
The tyres were half way between road and knobbly and are
about to be replaced. The bike got quite a positive review
in one of the recent cycling comics. It's got disc brakes
ans 27 gears (24 with the slightly cheaper Kraken), Shimano
Deore Derraileurs and a functional front suspension fork.

Go an have a look at one and use it as the bench mark when
trying to find alternative bikes.

Quoted message said:

PS. Are disc brakes worth having?

In my opinion, yes.

New User said:

A familiar kind of post I guess...I'm looking for advice
on what mountain bike I should be looking at, just for
fitness purposes i.e. 10 miles on tarmac or gentle off-
road (canal towpath etc.).

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I could ride without looking stupid i.e.
small frame with about 2ft of saddle post sticking up from
it. Also, I don't want the tyres to be *too* fat because
in the past I've found extra the rolling resistance a real
chore. Oh, and a comfy seat would be nice. Budget £300.

Any helpful / serious suggestions? I don't know where
to start.

Thanks.

My Giant's not bad compared to lots I see in pictures for
lots of seatpost out. That said, I'm not terrifically
long in the leg despite being 6'1, and so I only ride a
medium frame IIRC. Schwalbe makes slick MTB tyres, which
will increase your speeds on road. The saddle on my bike
isn't brilliantly comfy for me, but they're a pretty
personal thing.

Quoted message said:

PS. Are disc brakes worth having?

Not on a £300 bike.

"New User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A familiar kind of post I guess...I'm looking for advice
on what mountain bike I should be looking at, just for
fitness purposes i.e. 10 miles on tarmac or gentle off-
road (canal towpath etc.).

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I

could

Quoted message said:

ride without looking stupid i.e. small frame with about
2ft of saddle post sticking up from it.

Quoted message said:

PS. Are disc brakes worth having?

No, not at your price point and for the sort of riding
you're proposing. But if you were going to do serious
off-roading with long and/or wet descents and had a
bigger budget then for someone of your weight I'd say
they're a must.

With your budget I'd seriously consider this Norco, even
available in 21" as well as 18.5". For sizes measure your
inside leg from the ground (not like when measuring for
trousers) to your crotch then deduct at least 15" to come up
with your mtb frame size (different for road bikes). Using
this formula the 21" would suit if your inside leg is 36"
e.g.tails/mcs/ProductID/7129/GroupID/7/CategoryID/76/v/05bec941-
48b7-4580-a450-d696c33fae9b It has good quality forks and
other components for it's price, the only weak area may be
the hubs but not neccessarily so.

Other useful links:

Quoted message said:

bikemagic.comRCNOpen ↗
/56/RPN/15469/v/2/sp/

tails/mcs/ProductID/7684/GroupID/7/CategoryID/74/v/05bec941-
48b7-4580-a450-d696c33fae9b

evanscycles.comdept.jsp;jsessionid=C32044A4F711Open ↗
D7888C002F8978FB17A9?dept_id=1002

Good luck and enjoy the summer ;-)

My advice to anyone buying a bike is:

Go to a good independent bike shop; the staff will measure you up and make sure you get the right frame size.

For £300, you're not going to get anything wonderful; if you can afford to stretch your budget, you should; it will pay in the long run.

Go for something with a good strong well-built frame (everything else can be upgraded at a later date if wished but a [censored] frame means a [censored] bike) A good strong well-built pair of wheels is also called for. The shop will be able to advise on both of these.

There is no point in going for fancy brakes and gears. You don't need disc brakes. Also don't waste you money on other fancy add-ons. You can always add bits later.

Tell the shop what kind of tyres you want. They will fit them for you but you will have to pay for the privilege.

Saddles are very individual things; how comfortable they are depends on your anatomy and the type/duration of riding. Don't assume a nice squidgy one will be comfortable. It's a matter of trial and error, I'm afraid. Don't choose the bike on the basis of the saddle; that can always be changed

Any finally, try before you buy.

Ian

New User said:

A familiar kind of post I guess...I'm looking for advice
on what mountain bike I should be looking at, just for
fitness purposes i.e. 10 miles on tarmac or gentle off-
road (canal towpath etc.).

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I could ride without looking stupid i.e.
small frame with about 2ft of saddle post sticking up from
it. Also, I don't want the tyres to be *too* fat because
in the past I've found extra the rolling resistance a real
chore. Oh, and a comfy seat would be nice. Budget £300.

Any helpful / serious suggestions? I don't know where
to start.

Have a read of the guide produced by Myra - a former
resident of this newsgroup.

myra-simon.commtb advice1.htmlOpen ↗

You don't need disc brakes, at that price point they are
heavier and work less well than V-brakes and the benefits of
discs are not relevant tothe sort of riding you are
considering.

Tony

in message <[email hidden]>, New User

(') said:

A familiar kind of post I guess...I'm looking for advice
on what mountain bike I should be looking at, just for
fitness purposes i.e. 10 miles on tarmac or gentle off-
road (canal towpath etc.).

If you're looking for a bike for tarmac and canal path use,
by definition you don't want a mountain bike. A hybrid will
do you much better.

Quoted message said:

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I could ride without looking stupid i.e.
small frame with about 2ft of saddle post sticking up from
it. Also, I don't want the tyres to be *too* fat because
in the past I've found extra the rolling resistance a real
chore. Oh, and a comfy seat would be nice. Budget £300.

Sounds like a job for the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op Courier

<URL:http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/>

Quoted message said:

PS. Are disc brakes worth having?

Not at £300 for the bike, no. Good disc brakes are excellent
in very muddy conditions but they cost more than £200 a pair
just for the brakes. V brakes are better than cheap disks.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

New User said:

A familiar kind of post I guess...I'm looking for advice on
what mountain bike I should be looking at, just for fitness
purposes i.e. 10 miles on tarmac or gentle off-road (canal
towpath etc.).

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I could ride without looking stupid i.e.
small frame with about 2ft of saddle post sticking up from
it. Also, I don't want the tyres to be *too* fat because in
the past I've found extra the rolling resistance a real
chore. Oh, and a comfy seat would be nice. Budget £300.

Any helpful / serious suggestions? I don't know where
to start.

I'd agree with others who have replied and said that a
mountain bike isn't what you are looking for - a hybrid
would suit your needs better.

However, if it MUST be a mountain bike, my son has had five
years good service from his Saracen N-zyme, and it looks
good for a few more years use yet. It's bang on your budget
at £300. When he bought it, the mountain bike mags reckoned
it was best £300 mountain bike on the market - I don't know
if that's still the case. It's held up well though.

He's 6ft 2", BTW. With road type tyres (Specialized
Nimbus) and a seat post rack, he uses it for touring these
days, though it's crashed through a few forests in its
time as well.

saracen.co.uknzyme.htmlOpen ↗

refers

--
Best regards Richard

ceresgames.co.ukceresgames.co.ukOpen ↗

Following on from New User's message. . .

Quoted message said:

A familiar kind of post I guess...I'm looking for advice on
what mountain bike I should be looking at, just for fitness
purposes i.e. 10 miles on tarmac or gentle off-road (canal
towpath etc.).

Are you aware that there isn't quite the black-and-white
distinction between road and mountain? All sorts of names
for tougher than road bikes without suspension. Some are
going to be convenient as maid-of-all-work bikes eg with
brazes and muguard options. So take a good look around at
the /sorts/ of options.

Wheel (rims) need to be tough enough to take the odd tree
root etc. Obviously road bikes are built on the light
side and mountains much tougher - The inbetweenies you'll
have to check.

I believe ('cos I don't really know) MTB gears can sometimes
be lower than hybrid/city/road bikes. If you have lots of
flat tarmac then a bike designed for throwing up and down
assault courses will have your little hairy legs catching
fire 'cos they're going round so fast.

£300 is a reasonable budget. Don't forget lights and
clothing etc. This isn't nanny-speak, but why have to leave
the pub before it gets dark?

There are lots of tyres to chose from. Some have various
puncture protection mechanisms which many find valuable.

There are various ways of measuring up frames to suit
bodies. (Each one of which is /supposed/ to be
reliable.) It's a matter of trying some with the
assistance of LBS staff.

Do you need suspension - front/back/full (my guess is not
for what you have in mind). It adds to the manufacturing
cost but often not as much to the price - the bit that
suffers is overall quality.

My first bike (£100 mountain) came with a knife edge saddle!
I then went to the other extreme with a huge softy thing
which was a brilliant investment at the time. However I
_eventually_ came to use an everyday saddle. So while a
whopper saddle may not be cool, or what you'll eventually
use, it may be a luxury worth having for a year.

So it is a case of mix and match. Eg. I'll like this bike
with those tyres and mudguards etc.

Finally - Standard newbie info * LBS is "local bike shop".
These are usually have more depth of knowledge than
Ha***rds. Also their advice can be invaluable. Also they may
have suggestions for local rides and places worth
visiting/avoiding on a bike. * Purchase Cyclecraft by John
Franklin HMSO ISBN 0117020516. £10 very well spent. * If you
can find a buddy or get into commuting you'll boost your
miles, speed, endurance etc. * Four essential cycling tips
<http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk/pedalpoints.htm> * Have fun.
You'll soon extend your horizons.

Quoted message said:

The thing is, I'm 6ft 3" and 18 stone - are there any
mountain bikes I could ride without looking stupid i.e.
small frame with about 2ft of saddle post sticking up from
it. Also, I don't want the tyres to be *too* fat because in
the past I've found extra the rolling resistance a real
chore. Oh, and a comfy seat would be nice. Budget £300.

Any helpful / serious suggestions? I don't know where
to start.

Thanks.

PS. Are disc brakes worth having?

There are better things to spend your money on. Some
bikes have really feeble brakes. Just compare a £100 one
with a £300 one and the difference should be obvious.
(But they weren't to me 'cos I didn't have this advice
when I started.)

Quoted message said:

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

Ambrose Nankivell said:

=A3100 quid a pair for Avid cable discs recently at
Cyclesurgery. And t=

hey're

Quoted message said:

certainly good brakes.

But on a =A3300 bike these still represent a third of the
cost of the=20 whole thing, which I'd say is a distorted
sense of priorities since well =

adjusted rim brakes are perfectly adequate and you could
spend the =A3100=
=20
on a better frame and/or transmission which will make a much
bigger=20 difference. A better frame will prolong the useful
working life of the=20 bike by being readier to take
upgrades like, errr, disc brakes in the=20 future.

V brakes ain't broke, so needn't be fixed until you've got a
whole pile=20 of other things sorted as well as possible. I
just traded in mine after =

3 years, but that's on a =A31600 bike and didn't /need/
to be done.

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44
1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose Nankivell

(') said:

In "]news:[email hidden],
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Not at £300 for the bike, no. Good disc brakes are
excellent in very muddy conditions but they cost more
than £200 a pair just for the brakes. V brakes are better
than cheap disks.

£100 quid a pair for Avid cable discs recently at
Cyclesurgery. And they're certainly good brakes.

Probably. V brakes are good brakes as well, and weigh less.
What you get from hydraulically actuated brakes is more
sensitivity because you don't have cable friction. Disk
brakes are usually only earning their keep anyway when the
going is very slimy and muddy, and in those conditions
sensitivity is at a premium.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; When all else fails, read the
distractions.

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

£100 quid a pair for Avid cable discs ...they're
certainly good brakes.

But on a £300 bike these still represent a third of the
cost of the whole thing,...£100 on a better frame and/or
transmission which will make a much bigger difference.

To be fair
(i) The V brakes also cost; and
(ii) The manufacturer doesn't pay full retail for cable
operated disks So the difference to the manufacturer
isn't a third of the total. Nevertheless ...your
argument is essentially correct.

and, in any case, by the same token you should be
comparing the

Quoted message said:

gbp100 oem cost of the brakes to the >gbp300 oem cost of
the rest of

the bike if you are going to look at a cost ratio. I suspect
that oem v brakes are a *lot* less than gbp100

best wishes james