> Why? do the frames rust beyond ridability?
First of all, if you've had a great time on a $200 bike that's all that matters. If this guy who
wrote the post is riding trails in which a $200 bike will last him and if he will enjoy riding a
$200 bike, that's all that matters.
I myself started with some trashy second hand bikes. When I got a job I bought a department store
bike for less than $200. I damaged a lot of the parts, because I ride off jumps and drop between 2
and 5 feet. Notably, the frame bent and became noticeably weak at some of the joints, because many
department store bikes like mine (the old one) have no gussets and are not built with the same care
as the higher end bikes. After wearing it away, it was not worthwhile to buy new parts for it. In
fact, many of the parts are not upgradeable (the bottom bracket, pedals are incompatible, and there
are no mounts for racks or disk brakes etc). I thought it was a better investment to get a better
frame, which also included the better ability to upgrade. As far as the weight issue, there's no
reason to talk down on people who want a lighter bike. It's true, I was proud of the fact that I
could ride my 40 lb hunk of steel with a full daypack and pass others on the trail. But when I rode
my friends bike (which was under 30lbs) I liked it, and I could ride even tougher trails. Some
people say the same thing about full suspension bikes (or even hardtails with front suspension).
What's the point of riding offroad if you need to cush your tail with full suspension? Well, I rode
on some washboards with a full suspension and you get a smooth ride and you can maintain speed on a
downhill...
> if you have gotten so wimpy that the weight of the bike is important, then i pity you.
No need to be so defensive. It's all relative. There are rock climbers that don't shave down on
weight because they want to be "challenged". But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to do so. One of
the climbers that topped Mt. Everest decided to do it without an oxygen tank. He wanted to "test"
himself, and to be more natural. Then again, some people die without oxygen up there. Although you
could buy three $200 bikes for the price of my hardtail, I don't want to go through 3 bikes. Riding
your bike and feeling it break under you (and I'm not a heavy rider <150lbs), is a horrible feeling.
In fact, most department store bikes, including the full suspension ones have warnings on them that
say that they are not designed for off-road use.
> i am impressed more by the guy who can ride a 50 lb bike, and still keep up with all the guys
> riding feather weight bikes.
That's true. If the guy who posted said he wanted to impress me, I might have recommended that.
Another question that I usually ask people who want advice is: who do you ride with? Most people
don't ride alone. If you have similar riding skills as your friends, it's likely that you'll have
the most fun riding a similar quality bike. If you're riding with other people and you can't keep
up, you might consider getting a bike that gives you more advantages. If on the other hand you can
keep up with your friends on the bike you've got even if it's of lesser quality it doesn't matter.
>> The cheaper bikes are not really worth upgrading parts.
> Why? do the frames rust beyond ridability?
Well, the most obvious thing that was on my mind was that some $200 bikes don't have the ability to
upgrade or you need to buy all sorts of adapters and spacers for your bottom bracket etc, and also,
some people upgrade to parts that are "lighter" or "stronger" but it's more effective to get a
lighter or a stronger built frame.
Rust is a whole other issue. Cheaper bikes are steel and rust. Aluminum bikes don't (although the
parts may).
To the first poster: is any of this advice actually useful?
- J...D
