trek or avalanche

[mart99]

hello all
i am looking to change my rather tired old mountain bike, and so far have
seen an avalanche 2 for £385 and a trek6000 for £499 in the local bike
shops. Both these look fine to me but i was wondering what more experienced
heads on here might think.Is there £100 worth of difference in the two?

usually only do 20-25 miles per week of mixed on and off road,though hold
ambition to do c to c one day

any help or opinions much appreciated

thanks

 

[POHB]

On 13 Jun, 07:23, "mart99" <[email protected]> wrote:
> hello all
> i am looking to change my rather tired old mountain bike, and so far have
> seen an avalanche 2 for £385 and a trek6000 for £499 in the local bike
> shops. Both these look fine to me but i was wondering what more experienced
> heads on here might think.Is there £100 worth of difference in the two?
>
> usually only do 20-25 miles per week of mixed on and off road,though hold
> ambition to do c to c one day
>
> any help or opinions much appreciated
>
> thanks

Just looking at the specs I can't see £100 worth of difference
either. My other half has an Avalanche 1.0 (which I guess is pretty
similar to the 2.0 but with slightly posher bits on) and it is a
brilliant bike. It has that "just feels right" factor. However, as
you've seen them both in local shops I suggest you arrange a decent
test ride on each before making up your mind, you might well find the
Trek fits or suits you better.

 

[Mark T]

mart99 writtificated

> hello all
> i am looking to change my rather tired old mountain bike, and so far
> have seen an avalanche 2 for £385 and a trek6000 for £499 in the local
> bike shops. Both these look fine to me but i was wondering what more
> experienced heads on here might think.Is there £100 worth of
> difference in the two?
>
> usually only do 20-25 miles per week of mixed on and off road,though
> hold ambition to do c to c one day
>
> any help or opinions much appreciated

The Trek seems to have the lighter frame (double butted rather than single
butted), better brakes, gears (Deore rear mech AND shifters give it 9 speed
against the GT's hobbled 8 speed Deore/Alivio setup). The Trek will prolly
have better hubs, headset etc too.

More importantly the Trek has mountings for a rack. This'll be essential
for the coast to coast[1].

What really counts is how the bike fits you. Pop along for a test ride.
Get the bikes tyres pumped up, saddle adjusted to fit you etc and go off
for a good 10 minutes on each. I suspect both have a pretty sporty
geometry so will suit a fast rider. If you're more of a trekking cyclist
then a less sporty geometry might suit better - handlebars higher than the
saddle. This will give a more relaxed riding position.


[1] Well, not essential but will make things sooo much more pleasant than
using a sweaty rucksack you'd be crazy not to sling everything in a
pannier.