Newbie needs help

[foots]

I'm thinking about getting a new bike, and those full suspension with
disk brakes sure look sharp! But now I'm seeng terms like Mountian,
Downhill, Comfort, etc... What is the difference between Mountain and
Downhill?

TIA,
mikestallings<at>carolina<dot>rr<dot>com

 

[maxo]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:06:15 +0000, foots wrote:

> What is the difference between Mountain and
> Downhill?

The way the bike's dialed in--the tires, suspension travel, and such. One
could call downhill bikes a subset of mountain bikes, with a more specific
purpose rather than being all-rounders.

What's more important is what you want to do with the bike.

 

[foots]

Off road, trails, greenways and such... but am sure will not always be
going "downhill"! Maybe some road riding around the house, in a safe
quiet neighborhood, away from those idiot cars.



On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:25:27 GMT, maxo <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:06:15 +0000, foots wrote:
>
>> What is the difference between Mountain and
>> Downhill?
>
>The way the bike's dialed in--the tires, suspension travel, and such. One
>could call downhill bikes a subset of mountain bikes, with a more specific
>purpose rather than being all-rounders.
>
>What's more important is what you want to do with the bike.

 

[VBadJuJu]

foots <[email protected]> wrote:

>Off road, trails, greenways and such... but am sure will not always be
>going "downhill"! Maybe some road riding around the house, in a safe
>quiet neighborhood, away from those idiot cars.

Sounds to me like a standard mountain bike would be the ticket and
except for the off-road part, you could even consider a hybrid type as
well. Downhill is much more extreme than what you mention.

Depending on your age and weight, you might want to think twice about
the lower or frame shock suspension. The front fork suspension (of
decent quality) is nice to have, but the frame sus. can have some
drawbacks.

A) They tend to absorb some of the pedalling energy, especially as
they soften up. This can be bad if you find you like to cruise faster
and/or dont want to have to pedal that hard to make 16+ mph. Likewise
if you ride with others (like from the local bike club) you'll find
you have to work harder to keep up, especially with those on hybrids.
Additionally, you'll be lugging that 5lb (?) chunk of metal around on
every single one of those quick errands.

B) OTOH, they DO tend to soften the ride. If you are older or
heavier, a frame suspension can soften the bumps and such. I know
several local riders who love them for just those reasons.

They look "cool" (well, to some), but they come with a price beyond
cash money (some dont fit easily on car carriers). If you dont plan
to race down mountain sides, consider whether you really want (need)
it that much.

But whatever you do, stay away from K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target and Toys
R Us and go to a local bike shop. Two key things /I/ look for in a
LBS is: free/discount service and trade in ability. The ability to
trade in might be important after you figure out from experience how
you use it and what you need.


>
>
>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:25:27 GMT, maxo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:06:15 +0000, foots wrote:
>>
>>> What is the difference between Mountain and
>>> Downhill?
>>
>>The way the bike's dialed in--the tires, suspension travel, and such. One
>>could call downhill bikes a subset of mountain bikes, with a more specific
>>purpose rather than being all-rounders.
>>
>>What's more important is what you want to do with the bike.

 

[maxo]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:59:43 -0600, VBadJuJu wrote:

> Sounds to me like a standard mountain bike would be the ticket and
> except for the off-road part, you could even consider a hybrid type as
> well.

Certainly good advice. Think about how you're really going to ride--is it
going to be 80% on pavement, and is the "off road" stuff going to be
fairly smooth paths?

Then definitely consider a "hardtail" MTB or a hybrid
(or even a cyclocross bike, but that's an economic step up). Hybrids can
be equipped with narrow knobbies (the 700c size for CX bikes, around 1.5"
wide) and usually come with lightweight suspension forks these
days--perfect for some unpaved paths. If you go the entry level MTB route,
then you can switch out the super knobby tires for something a little
faster and quieter if you end up staying on the road. These are common
types of bikes and you should be able to walk out of the shop with a
really decent all rounder for $500 or so. You can certainly spend a lot
more, but it would be a shame to drop a ton of money on an MTB to discover
that you've fallen in love with road riding and vice versa.

 

[Left-Pinky-Toe]

>Off road, trails, greenways and such... but am sure will not always be
>going "downhill"! Maybe some road riding around the house, in a safe
>quiet neighborhood, away from those idiot cars.

Sounds like you want a mountain bike then.

>
>
>
>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:25:27 GMT, maxo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:06:15 +0000, foots wrote:
>>
>>> What is the difference between Mountain and
>>> Downhill?
>>
>>The way the bike's dialed in--the tires, suspension travel, and such. One
>>could call downhill bikes a subset of mountain bikes, with a more specific
>>purpose rather than being all-rounders.
>>
>>What's more important is what you want to do with the bike.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[foots]

Thanks everyone for the great advice. I have been looking at bikes on
E-Bay, there is quite a selection out there. There are MSRP $850 -
$1000 (new) going for $400, and also some MSRP $ $500 for $200 - $300.
The drawback is I'd have to assemble myself or take to a shop and no
follow up service / trade ins. I'm mechanically inclined, so assembly
is no problem.
I'm 60# overweight and 47 years young so the full suspension is
attractive to me. I've lost 20#'s already by diet and riding my old
Sears Kennsington 15 speed.
Motobecane, Micargi, Sick by Worcycle, Firmstrong, Tank, Giant...
whew, so many choices.
I am going to take the advice and go to a local shop before I buy
anything.
Thanks!

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:59:43 -0600, VBadJuJu <[email protected]> wrote:

>foots <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Off road, trails, greenways and such... but am sure will not always be
>>going "downhill"! Maybe some road riding around the house, in a safe
>>quiet neighborhood, away from those idiot cars.
>
>Sounds to me like a standard mountain bike would be the ticket and
>except for the off-road part, you could even consider a hybrid type as
>well. Downhill is much more extreme than what you mention.
>
>Depending on your age and weight, you might want to think twice about
>the lower or frame shock suspension. The front fork suspension (of
>decent quality) is nice to have, but the frame sus. can have some
>drawbacks.
>
>A) They tend to absorb some of the pedalling energy, especially as
>they soften up. This can be bad if you find you like to cruise faster
>and/or dont want to have to pedal that hard to make 16+ mph. Likewise
>if you ride with others (like from the local bike club) you'll find
>you have to work harder to keep up, especially with those on hybrids.
>Additionally, you'll be lugging that 5lb (?) chunk of metal around on
>every single one of those quick errands.
>
>B) OTOH, they DO tend to soften the ride. If you are older or
>heavier, a frame suspension can soften the bumps and such. I know
>several local riders who love them for just those reasons.
>
>They look "cool" (well, to some), but they come with a price beyond
>cash money (some dont fit easily on car carriers). If you dont plan
>to race down mountain sides, consider whether you really want (need)
>it that much.
>
>But whatever you do, stay away from K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target and Toys
>R Us and go to a local bike shop. Two key things /I/ look for in a
>LBS is: free/discount service and trade in ability. The ability to
>trade in might be important after you figure out from experience how
>you use it and what you need.
>
>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:25:27 GMT, maxo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:06:15 +0000, foots wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the difference between Mountain and
>>>> Downhill?
>>>
>>>The way the bike's dialed in--the tires, suspension travel, and such. One
>>>could call downhill bikes a subset of mountain bikes, with a more specific
>>>purpose rather than being all-rounders.
>>>
>>>What's more important is what you want to do with the bike.

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:07:47 +0000, foots wrote:

> I'm 60# overweight and 47 years young so the full suspension is
> attractive to me.

Certainly go full suspension if you're going off-road, but be aware that
if you're mainly going to ride on smooth trails, roads, and bike paths, a
full suspension is simply going to add complexity, cost, weight, and a
chance of breakage where there was none before. On the road, slightly
wider tire than a skinny tire racer will be all the suspension anybody
needs.



I'm thinking a $500USD hybrid with 700x37c tires, suspension fork & post,
and fenders might be just your thing. A bike for all seasons.

I honestly think that for a first fancy bike bike, if you get something
that could be ridden in street clothes w/o looking silly--you'll end up
using the bike more often--since you won't feel like you have to "gear up"
every time you want to go for an evening spin around the block.

Let us know how it goes--maybe you'll become a 48 y/o muddy MTB demon. LOL

 

[VBadJuJu]

foots <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks everyone for the great advice. I have been looking at bikes on
>E-Bay, there is quite a selection out there. There are MSRP $850 -
>$1000 (new) going for $400, and also some MSRP $ $500 for $200 - $300.
>The drawback is I'd have to assemble myself or take to a shop and no
>follow up service / trade ins. I'm mechanically inclined, so assembly
>is no problem.

Some of those could be overstock or last years models. No big deal
but your LBS will have similar deals at certain times of the year
(spring, back to school, model yr change, Xmas and prolly year end
inventory reduction).


>I'm 60# overweight and 47 years young so the full suspension is
>attractive to me. I've lost 20#'s already by diet and riding my old
>Sears Kennsington 15 speed.

My comment on that was entirely annecdotal. I seemed to see "a lot"
of full suspension bikes among those least inclined to seriously rough
riding (like grandfathers riding with grandkids), so I asked. As an
alternative to full suspension, you could look at just adding a
suspension seat post /if/ you actually need it.

If your main intent is weight loss and excercise, forget the hybrid.
A mountain bike will burn more calories per mile (or hour) than either
a hybrid or a road bike.


>Motobecane, Micargi, Sick by Worcycle, Firmstrong, Tank, Giant...
>whew, so many choices.

Most of those arent exactly the first names that come to mind when one
ponders a quality, name brand affordable bicycle ('website coming
soon' and no dealer list is a clue). Check out
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/ for user ratings.

Look at Trek, Raleigh, Giant, Fuji and Trek as well.

>I am going to take the advice and go to a local shop before I buy
>anything.

They will likely let you ride them a bit too.

 

[Darin McGrew]

maxo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Certainly go full suspension if you're going off-road, but be aware that
> if you're mainly going to ride on smooth trails, roads, and bike paths, a
> full suspension is simply going to add complexity, cost, weight, and a
> chance of breakage where there was none before. On the road, slightly
> wider tire than a skinny tire racer will be all the suspension anybody
> needs.
>
>
>
> I'm thinking a $500USD hybrid with 700x37c tires, suspension fork & post,
> and fenders might be just your thing. A bike for all seasons.

IME, a suspension post is just "a chance of breakage where there was none
before", especially for a heavier rider (e.g., the OP, who wants to lose a
few dozen pounds). It didn't really improve my comfort (either before
breaking, or immediately after breaking).
--
Darin McGrew, [email protected], http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, [email protected], http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I can take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once."

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:58:24 +0000, Darin McGrew wrote:

> IME, a suspension post is just "a chance of breakage where there was none
> before", especially for a heavier rider (e.g., the OP, who wants to lose a
> few dozen pounds). It didn't really improve my comfort (either before
> breaking, or immediately after breaking).
> --

To be honest, I've never used one, I use a sprung Brooks Flyer saddle
instead. I've heard rants and raves about them, including yours--I'd tend
to agree with you, but a quick look at the local LBS shows the majority
of "hybrids" coming with the offending posts. If they work they
work--since so many of today's frames are harsh and overbuilt, perhaps a
good thing. If they do break, then a rigid replacement post is quite
affordable.

 

[C]

In article <[email protected]>,
maxo <[email protected]> wrote:
>To be honest, I've never used one, I use a sprung Brooks Flyer saddle
>instead. I've heard rants and raves about them, including yours--I'd tend
>to agree with you, but a quick look at the local LBS shows the majority
>of "hybrids" coming with the offending posts. If they work they
>work--since so many of today's frames are harsh and overbuilt, perhaps a
>good thing. If they do break, then a rigid replacement post is quite
>affordable.

The suspension seatposts sold with low end hybrids are for hype value only.
Companies think beginner riders are more likely to buy a bike with them.
Hybrids tires are fat enough to smooth out the ride of any frame.
A suspension seatpost might take the edge off a real rocky trail, but in
that case riding out of the saddle usually works better.

 

[Mike Kruger]

maxo wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:58:24 +0000, Darin McGrew wrote:
>
>> IME, a suspension post is just "a chance of breakage
where there was
>> none before", especially for a heavier rider (e.g., the
OP, who
>> wants to lose a few dozen pounds). It didn't really
improve my
>> comfort (either before breaking, or immediately after
breaking).
>> --
>
> To be honest, I've never used one, I use a sprung Brooks
Flyer saddle
> instead. I've heard rants and raves about them, including
yours--I'd
> tend to agree with you, but a quick look at the local LBS
shows the
> majority of "hybrids" coming with the offending posts. If
they work
> they work--since so many of today's frames are harsh and
overbuilt,
> perhaps a good thing. If they do break, then a rigid
replacement post
> is quite affordable.

I'm with Darin. The suspension seatpost on my Raleigh SC40
(a $300 comfort bike, used as my winter/bad weather bike)
broke after 3 years. This is the only seatpost I've ever
broken. I replaced it with a standard seatpost. My butt
notices no difference, even though I'm typically using high
pressure slicks.

I'm also using a Brooks saddle (B17, no springs) on this
bike. I suspect the old-technology "slab of leather" Brooks
saddle is substantially more effective than the type of
suspension seatposts seen on low-end bikes.