MTB shopping

[zahc]

I'm going to get a mountain bike soon. I used to race dirt bikes, and I ride/rode freestyle bikes until my shoulders got too bad. But I just moved to a town that has tons of MTB trails. I was hoping to spend under $1000.

Basically I don't know what I want.

Disc brakes? Mechanical or Hydraulic?

Hardtail? Full suspension? Can I even get full suspension on my budget? Do I even want full suspension if I will use the bike around town a lot?

All manufacturers pretty much have their own proprietary suspensions, right, (aside from forks), or is there some degree of standardization?

I especially want something that can be upgraded. I have probably $1500 in my little kids' bike, and I'm familiar with the phenomenon of buying a complete bike, upgrading everything but the seatpost clamp, and ending up more expensive than you could have just bought a nice bike. So something with a frame and suspension that I will be happy with, even if it has crappy parts is better.

[cosine]

Here's my limited knowledge on the subject...

Disk brakes are more impervious to the elements than caliper brakes, only downside is that they're a bit more complex to service.

My bike is a several year old (an old Trek 4000) hardnose. At least get front fork suspension. A hardnose really tears up your arms horribly.

I know that softtails used to be a bit heavier than hardtails because of the extra suspension, but I'm not sure how extra heavy they are now. Most makers do seem to have their own rear suspension. Unless you're doing a lot of heavy and hard downhill riding, I'm not convinced yet that rear suspension is a necessity. Front fork suspension however is. (Anyway, you'd be hard put to find a bike without fork suspension nowdays anyway.)

Besides suspension, don't forget to check the derailer system and compare different ones. Makers have a habit of putting cheap derailers on bikes. That might even be your first upgrade.

Any bike from one of the popular makers like Trek, Specialized, Gary Fisher, etc. would probably get you started with a decent bike for under $1000.


Read tons of mountain bike stuff to decied what you want. Read stuff online. (You can start here: http://www.mtbr.com) Test ride bikes.

Okay, I've exuasted my knowledge of the subject. I love riding, I just haven't had the time or money to really get into real mounting biking.

I lurk at www.cyclingforums.com and www.bikeforums.net occasionally. Just be aware that the soapbox forum at cyclingforums is comparable to DU with its illogical leftist verbiage.

[gunsmith]

thanks for the forums link, thats cool!

[cosine]

thanks for the forums link, thats cool!

No problem. You know, there's a forum out there for every activity you can think of.

[mtnbkr]

Go for disk brakes.  Even mechanical ones are better than V-Brakes/cantelevers based on what I've been told. I dunno.  my 8yo Klein has V-brakes and I'm not upgrading to disk up front until I have to replace the fork because then I'll have to replace the wheel AND buy the disk brake.  

Hardtail vs full suspension depends on YOU.  Weights are still up there and it even appears that hardtail weights are creeping up.  Can't have a light bike when all you're doing is "freeriding".  My bike is right at 24lbs and I could easily cut another pound off without getting into "Ritchey 'lasts one season'" type stuff.  Full suspension bikes still weigh a freaking ton.  I see those guys creeping uphill so they can ride like idiots down the other side.

I wouldn't worry about the deraileurs, etc.  Stuff has improved so much over the years, even the cheap stuff is as nice or better than my mix of Nukeproof, Shimano LX/XT, and Sram Gripshift 9.0 (none of it younger than 6years), which still serves me well.

What kind of riding do you expect to do?  My Klein (which has a frame geometry very well suited to tight and twisty singletrack) kicks but on the tight, technical stuff, but is a bit twitchy on fast dirt roads and the like.  Not even a softtail can match it's natural ability on the technicals (within the limits of the rider).  That said, it does punish you for picking a bad line.

I just got back into riding after a 5yr hiatus.  It's amazing to me that the new bikes are such pigs.  They look like motocross bikes without the engines and probably weigh as much.

Chris

[Shalako]

I've always been a rigid-bike mountain biker (since the late late 80s) and always enjoyed the sport. Last summer I went on a mind-blowing ride up in the mountains that was basically a 4 mile downhill that was 80% rock garden. Going off boulder after boulder for the whole way down the mountain. It was the most fun ride I'd ever done. It did blow out my headset and stripped out the threads on my forks though. The day I got back from the ride I tracked down my dream bike I saw in a bike shop in Truckee and convinced the wife I really really needed it.

Full suspension is pure nirvanna on rock garden downhills.

Cross-country riding you could take or leave the rear suspension, but I still enjoy having it there when you need it.

My bike is a 2005 Specialized FSRxc pro. It has a Fox air shock made just for this bike called the Float Triad. It can be locked out with the flick of a switch and functions as a rigid bike for the gnarly uphills (you don't want a suspension that will abasorb your pedal energy on the uphills), fully open for downhill, or dampning for somewhere in between (I usually leave it on dampning)

You might as well get the disk brakes. Mine are mechanical and super easy to adjust. I think topnotch riders prefer hydraulic though. I let my rider buddy try my bike and when she clamped the front brake she endo'd over the bars, so be carefull at first.

Also, go for at leat 4" of travel on the front and back suspension. Crazy downhillers have like 8" of travel but that is for going off 5 foot drops and really insane obstacles at high speed.

The best full-suspension production bikes out nowadays are Speciallized (biased), Kona, Ellsworth, Giant, and definately Santa Cruz.

Like Mtnbkr says, it depends on you and the type of riding you want to do. Long technical rides - light and rigid is king. Bumps, air, and general thrashing in the dirt - full suspension rules...

[Shalako]

http://www.mbaction.com/

Great magazine!

[mtnbkr]

http://www.mbaction.com/

Great magazine!

http://www.dirtragmag.com/
Better magazine.

Dunno what either is like these days, but back in "the day", MBA was the glossy slickster of mtn bike mags (think Guns and Ammo).  Dirt Rag was the Gun Tests of mtn bike mags.  Not quite a perfect description of either, but you get my point.  What I liked about DR was that it was more "East Coast" (no, not a rap thing) and focused on trails and gear that actually had relevence for me.  MBA was all about fire roads and gear that was pointless out here.

Hey, who remembers elevated chainstays, Phil's Tenacious Oil, and Greaseguard hubs?

Raise your hand if you owned a mountain bike with thumbshifters.  Extra credit if they were friction (I get to raise my hand twice).

Chris

[Shalako]

Elevated chainstays - Like the old Nishikis? Those were groovy.

Thumbshifters? Not here. My 1989 GT K2 still has the original shimano rapidfire equipment. The front started working so horribly that I took it off, and the front deraileur, and now just use my toe to downshift when I ride that bike. But it has newer goofy forks and will never be the same though.

I weighted my FSR last night, YIKES! --- 31 lbs without the toolbag and pump. It must be the goofy extra squishy chode seat I put on it that makes it soo heavy. The stock seat was not conducive to any sort of prosticular longevity.

Thanks for the link to that mag.

[mtnbkr]

The Nishikis were one brand.  There were others too.  Odd bikes

My first mountain bike back in 82 or so had friction thumbshifters.  My second bike in 90 had the first gen rapidfire, which I replaced with Suntour's top of the line click thumbshifters (XC Pro?).  They had a neat switch to convert to friction shift mode in case of problems.  My third and current ride in 98 came with mid-level Sram gripshift, which I eventually upgrade to their top of the line gripshifters around 1999.  I more or less stopped riding around 2001 and have just recently gotten back into it.

Chris

[Shalako]

Yeah, I got out of riding for about a decade. Its funny though that it was my dad that got me back into it. He's nearly retired and rides 2-3 times a week and is getting into just phenominal shape. He's 60 and riding farther up the steep ascents than I could do when  was 19. Well, he let me try his Specialized with front suspension and I suddenly remembered how much fun riding in the dirt can be. Especially for me if I take lots of breaks and enjoy the outdoors and the views.

Well, I'm 36 now and still enjoying thrashing around on the trails. Even my wife is starting to get into it. We got wher a brand new aluminum Specialized with a tiny frame and 4" travel forks for $350.


PS. Mtnbkr, do use the clipless pedals? Since I was reared on toeclips, I just can't warm up to clipless even though everyone else goes clipless. I swiped my 1989 Deore DX pedals off the GT for use on the FSR. I guess all new bikes go clipless so you have to get new cheapo plastic toeclip pedals or track down some antiques like I did.

[mtnbkr]

I've been using clipless since the mid 90s.  I started out with plain pedals, then toe clips, then clipless.  Clipless rules.  I started out with SPD, but have been using Bebop pedals since 98ish.  You can put so much more power to the ground and the bike moves more effeciently with you.  After a short period of time, dismounting becomes as easy as with toeclips.  The only drawback is you can no longer just jump on your bike and ride to the store in street shoes.  Well, you can, but you have an itty bitty pedal.

http://www.bebop.com/index/ani.htm

Chris

[crt360]

Full suspension bikes still weigh a freaking ton.  I see those guys creeping uphill so they can ride like idiots down the other side.

Guilty, here.  I'm still riding my six year old Cannondale SuperV 700.  The full suspension is great for the downhill, especially the kind with unseen hard stuff that would throw a hardtail up your butt.  I had a GT K2 for years and loved it on the street, but the lack of suspension got old after awhile on rough roads.  Rear suspensions will definitely sap some extra energy from you going uphill (that's partly why we ride like idiots down the other side) - some are noticeably more draining than others.  Since I ride mostly for fun and exercise, I can live with it.  If I raced regularly on a track where I knew a hardtail would benefit, I'd go with it.

I haven't even looked at new MTBs or equipment in a few years and I'm sure I've saved a lot of money as a result.

When they come out with a solid, nice handling, under 20 lb. bike with rear suspension that auto locks out on climbs for less than a grand, I'll start thinking about replacing what I have.

[Shalako]

When they come out with a solid, nice handling, under 20 lb. bike with rear suspension that auto locks out on climbs for less than a grand, I'll start thinking about replacing what I have.

The light bike that auto locks out on uphills sounds like the Specialized S-Works Stumpjumper with the Brain Shock. My brother-in-law [ ] bought one and paid around $5k for it. They make an S-Works model every year that just has the lightest most unreal components available and is handmade, but usually is astronomical in price. Not worth it unless you're a sponsored pro or Bill Gates. I think the 2006 model is like $6 or 7k

The Brain shock ( I think it is discontinued) could sense the force in your pedal energy and adjust the rebound and damping of the shock accordingly. Very cool but, $$$$

See, I have a brain shock too, in a way. my brain senses a hill is coming and I flick da switch. That easy, and I saved $3500. Excellent

[zahc]

Do bikes with lockout rear suspension have handlebar mounted switches? A FS bike with lockout sounds really appealing.

[crt360]

The light bike that auto locks out on uphills sounds like the Specialized S-Works Stumpjumper with the Brain Shock. They make an S-Works model every year that just has the lightest most unreal components available and is handmade, but usually is astronomical in price. Not worth it unless you're a sponsored pro or Bill Gates. I think the 2006 model is like $6 or 7k

You're getting there.  Knock $4000-5000 off the price and it will be in my ball park.

The Brain shock ( I think it is discontinued) could sense the force in your pedal energy and adjust the rebound and damping of the shock accordingly. Very cool but, $$$$

See, I have a brain shock too, in a way. my brain senses a hill is coming and I flick da switch. That easy, and I saved $3500. Excellent

Me, too.  My brain goes into shock when I realize how steep the hill ahead is, which allows me to mindlessly pedal up, where the rest of my body goes into shock from overexertion.  I then speed down the other side like an idiot.  A manually lockable rear shock would be an improvement for me.

[mtnbkr]

The full suspension is great for the downhill, especially the kind with unseen hard stuff that would throw a hardtail up your butt.

I still remember reading about John Tomac hitting 60mph on the Mammoth Mountain downhill race with a completely rigid bike.  There was one pick of him going airborn over a berm during the race.

Just thought of something....Does Ritchey still field a true mountain bike team?  Back in the early 90s, he was obsessed with making mountain bikes that were as light as road bikes.  When front suspension hit the market, he wouldn't let his team use it.  They had to use those crappy Girvin Flexstems if they wanted any suspension.  

Chris

[Shalako]

Some do have a switch on the handlebars. I can't remember right now which ones though. Mine is a three position rotating switch on the shock that snaps into each position. Its the little blue lever. The red adjustment wheel adjusts the rebound speed. There is also a front suspension damping control w/ lockout and it is the red doo-hickey on the forks. You have to reach down and flick it but at that point you're going kind of slow anyway...  (please disregard the cheesy tiki bar in the background)

[crt360]

Just thought of something....Does Ritchey still field a true mountain bike team?  Back in the early 90s, he was obsessed with making mountain bikes that were as light as road bikes.  When front suspension hit the market, he wouldn't let his team use it.  They had to use those crappy Girvin Flexstems if they wanted any suspension.  Chris

The members of team Ritchey are probably layin' around all crippled up somewhere.

[gaston_45]

I'm kinda like you guys, was into biking before suspension was thought of, still rode my cannondale m400 full rigid up until a month ago.  I upgraded to a Gary Fisher Mullet, a 3.9 inch front suspension hardtail.  It has a medium/crappy Manatou fork that will probably be the first .... second upgrade( I broke the crappy Shimano IG chain today so it's been upgraded to SRAM chain).  



I have ridden my friend's Kona Stinky Delux full suspension and the extra 10 pounds just isn't worth it.  I am always behind him by a little bit ( I can hear him, just can't see him ahead) on the downhills but I am riding longer on the uphills.  Sure I can do 10 foot drop offs with his... but why?  There's that nice trail around the drop off and I can easily do 4 to 5 foot drops on the hardtail.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm going to get a mountain bike soon. I used to race dirt bikes, and I ride/rode freestyle bikes until my shoulders got too bad. But I just moved to a town that has tons of MTB trails. I was hoping to spend under $1000.

Thats reasonable.  There are alot of good bikes, both fs and ht, in that price range.

Basically I don't know what I want.

Disc brakes? Mechanical or Hydraulic?

This depends on the trails.  Lots of muddy or wet conditions, or very long downhills, then discs are king.  I prefer mechanical, because if you pop a line on a hydraulic brake you're hosed.  

Hardtail? Full suspension? Can I even get full suspension on my budget? Do I even want full suspension if I will use the bike around town a lot?

This depends on the trails in your area.  Lots of rocks and technical riding might dictate an FS bike.  Lots of climbing might dictate a HT.  
You can get either in your budget range, but you can get one freaking seriously killer hardtail in that range.  You're limited on hardtail choices, and probably won't find air-shocks in that range.  

All manufacturers pretty much have their own proprietary suspensions, right, (aside from forks), or is there some degree of standardization?

Sort of.  The Specalized design is one of the best out there, and is widely copied (through royalty payments, of course).  This of course only goes to fs bikes.  Hardtails are pretty much universal, just depending on frame design and how it fits you.

I especially want something that can be upgraded. I have probably $1500 in my little kids' bike, and I'm familiar with the phenomenon of buying a complete bike, upgrading everything but the seatpost clamp, and ending up more expensive than you could have just bought a nice bike. So something with a frame and suspension that I will be happy with, even if it has crappy parts is better.

Any decent mountain bike can be upgraded, or parts are easily replaced when damaged or worn.  
I ride an inexpensive FS bike, but I also got a deal on it.  I'd suggest a HT in your price range, you'll find the best components and front shock for the buck.

[mtnbkr]

Lots of rocks and technical riding might dictate an FS bike.  Lots of climbing might dictate a HT.

Maybe, but maybe not.  It depends on your riding style.  If you're a technical rider, you may do better with the lighter weight of a HT.  

One one of the singletrack trails in NoVa, there's a medium length downhill with a 14" log at the bottom.  Just on the other side of that log is a sharp, steep uphill with lots of rocks and roots.  There is barely a bike-length between the log and climb.  I used to come down that hill, dump the gears to my middle chainring and largest cog and grab brakes right before the log, slowing to about 4mph, bring the front end into the air high enough to just clear the log with the chainrings and hop the log just as I felt the rear tire make contact.  I would have enough velocity to attack the climb and make it to the top (where I would frequently stop in hoping to not puke).  I couldn't do that with a heavier bike.  Another dynamic of a light bike is that you can stand and let the rear end "float" beneath you.  Heavier bikes don't do this as well.  Of course, these days, "heavier bikes" tend to be FS, so you have that going for you.  

Does anyone know if it's still possible to get a bike targeted towards trail riding?  I'm talking about the bikes Cannondale made back in the late 80s to early 90s and what Klein still makes to a certain degree (though even they're moving away from their trail roots).  

The bike I'm thinking of would be lightweight (less than 4lb frame), have short chainstays (16.5"), tall bottom bracket (11.5"+), a long top tube for it's size, a somewhat relaxed seat angle (72degrees), and a steep headtube angle (71.5-72.5degrees effective after a suspension fork's extra height is factored in).  The overall wheelbase should be less than 42" for a Medium sized frame (for a rider 5'8"-5'11").  The frame would be ultrastiff for great power transfer on trails that have extreme transitions from descent to climbing with near 180degree switchbacks, and lots of rocks, roots, and mud.  It's not a highspeed rig.  Once you get over 25mph, it's a very twitchy bike.

Other components to complete the package (other than the obvious wheels, etc) would be longer cranks for max torque, a short stem to put the rider a hair behind the axle of the front wheel, and a long seatpost to make up for the shorter frame height.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

Almost all the mfg's make dedicated XC style mountain bikes, in both FS and HT.  Also, there are a host of mostly MTB makers out there, like Moots and Gary Fisher and what not, I'm imagining that you shouldn't have much trouble finding exactly what you speak of.  


As for heavy vs. light, sure a 22lb bike is sweet, but I've eaten plenty of guys for lunch on better rides with my 31lb FS  bike.

[mtnbkr]

Almost all the mfg's make dedicated XC style mountain bikes,

That's the problem.  What I'm looking for isn't a traditional XC style bike.  It's similar, but different and it's the differences, subtle as they are, that make all the difference.

I've been looking, but at least on paper, none of the bikes match up with what I want.  I'm not sure if you can compare the numerical geometry of current bikes to what I'm used to though.  It's all academic since I'm not replacing this bike till the frame cracks.

Of course a fit rider on a heavy bike can outride a slug on a light bike.  My comments were more to the point of a single rider comparing two bikes of different design.  I've been on all sides of that equation.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

Of course a fit rider on a heavy bike can outride a slug on a light bike.  My comments were more to the point of a single rider comparing two bikes of different design.  I've been on all sides of that equation.

I agree to a certain extent.  I find that even though my FS bike is heavier, that it makes up for that by soaking up pretty shitty terrain, allowing me to keep my forward momentum when a HT would get bounced all over the place.  Here, we have alot of trails that climb 2 or 3 thousand feet, and then you just turn around and descend back down that.  Some of them are pretty rough, and that extra shock absorption makes it much easier to maintain momentum.  A few are very buff singletrack, and a low-20's HT would be butta on that.
I'm also not very technically proficient, so for me the FS bike is a wonder.  As I get to be a more experienced MTBer, I could probably do more with less, IE a hard tail.

And now, some pictures.....