Printable View
I am VERY new to mountain biking. I've been looking at a lot of bikes...I'm trying to decide between a specialized rockhopper (the women's specific one) or a trek...probably the 6700. I was wondering if anyone rides/has ridden either of these and would be willing to share pros and cons?
I bought the entry-level Trek 820 just about 3 months ago and love it. It's their only steel frame ummmm hardtail (?) and it handled pretty much every thing I threw at him. Actually, he handled more then I, the rider, did! :p I know you said 6700 but I'll Always put a vote in for Trek!
Thanks so much. Have you had any trouble with the fork? That was the only thing I was not sure about on the trek.
with the fork??.....no is there something you heard or experienced? I actually own 3 Treks: a Navigator 200 comfort bike with front suspension, the 820 and a vintage Trek 1100 road bike and I haven't had problems with any of them.
it's what i saw on mtbr.com a lot of reviewers said they had problems with the fork, but they didn't really specify which fork it was...so i wasn't sure.
The Trek 6700 has slightly higher-end components (gearing etc.) than the Rockhopper WSD. The disc brakes will certainly give you more stopping power than the specialized's v-brakes, especially in the wet. I've never ridden a bike with a RockShox fork, but they are a reputable brand. The only thing I notice is that 80mm isn't a lot of travel, but it's not an uncommon amount on an XC bike, and you get the same amount of travel on the smaller Rockhoppers.
Hope that was vaguely helpful. :confused:
How much money are you willing to spend and are you looking for a hardtail or full suspension? I tend to like Specialized products. They use very good components and really stand behind their products if there is a problem. If you can find a 2005 Spec. Stumpjumper M4 hardtail (around $800 - 1000), it comes with a FOX RLC 80 -100mm front fork. Does really well for cross-country type riding. If you see yourself doing something alittle more aggressive, say downhill singletrack, I would really look for a fork (and shock if full suspension) with more travel, say 120mm. If you are really light weight, around 100 - 110 lbs, you probably can get away with the 80 mm fork. Also check out the Gary Fisher Cake bikes
[QUOTE=gr8lakesgurl]I am VERY new to mountain biking. I've been looking at a lot of bikes...I'm trying to decide between a specialized rockhopper (the women's specific one) or a trek...probably the 6700.
lIf you get a chance have a look thru this months Mountain Bike Magazines - one of them (sorry I cant remember which one and Husband has gone away for a week and taken it with him) has a review on women specific mountain bikes. Not sure if you are after WSD but its a good read. One of the bikes included is a Trek. :)
If you _did_ have fork problems, that's one of the easiest upgrades to make, that will make a huge difference in comfort, anyway. You can buy a really nice last year's fork from any of the good manufacturers as a fraction of the original cost.
Disc brakes are the best. Especially if you will be riding or taking your bike to anywhere with long descents- Tsali or Pisgah in NC come to mind! I have Avid mechanical discs, which have never caused any trouble and are worth their weight in gold.
Nanci
I've been happy with my Rockshock Sid for several years now. I had a Rockshock Judy before that and it was ok, too. It lasted about 5 years but went through some of the muddiest race conditions ever and was barely maintained.
you don't say what your budget range is, once you get to about $500 the quality of the compenents increases dramatically. Any fork on a bike that costs less than that is most likely going to be an elastomer fork, ( giant rubber bands) and not air or coil.
Giant also provides some of the best bang for your buck bike on the lower end of the spectrum.
Correct fit is, IMSHO, the most critical factor in mountain bike fit.
And now to put out my women specific soap box:
Women specific is designed for a specific body type, which if you fall into that range ( long legs, short torso) is great. But do not buy one just becuase you are female. Unless you are spending a lot of $$ on one, as a rule they have a more crappy component set than the same bike, non, wsd version.
irulan
I've had the 6700 for over 2 years and have been VERY happy with it. I haven't had any problems, it handles well and has decent components to start with. The only part I felt was really poor on it were the pedals (not sure if Trek changed since I purchased). They were terrible to get out of for me and I found the Time's to be much better. It was my first MTB also and made me fall in love with the sport! In saying that though, it really comes down to fit. You should try to test ride them both to see how you feel on them (if possible) before making the decision.
Looking at the specs for the 6700 and 6700WSD they look identical and the Rockhopper looks like it has a slightly different fork on the small WSD with less travel (80mm) but the same for the larger size WSD (100mm). Everything else is identical and the same price...Quote:
Unless you are spending a lot of $$ on one, as a rule they have a more crappy component set than the same bike, non, wsd version.
I definitely agree though to not purchase a WSD just because you are a female. Test ride the non-wsd bikes also to find the perfect fit.
Thanks for all the advice. I rode a rockhopper comp with disk brakes yesterday and it fit fine. I still haven't decided between that and the trek but I feel so much better now making the choice with all the help!
And now to put out my women specific soap box:
Women specific is designed for a specific body type, which if you fall into that range ( long legs, short torso) is great. But do not buy one just becuase you are female. Unless you are spending a lot of $$ on one, as a rule they have a more crappy component set than the same bike, non, wsd version.
irulan[/QUOTE]
Irulan:
I'm with you on that. I actually do fit the description for a WSD bike (long legs, short arms and torso) but have brought "man" bikes and modified the stem to get the fit I want because the components were better on the "man" bike. Generally bike manufacturers think all women who ride weigh less than 120 lbs. That might be but I'm tall and well, large, and need a substantial front fork. I checked with Specialized on their WSD bikes and unfortunately the forks are not interchangeable (I wanted the Fox on the "man" bike not the Manitou on the WSD). Something one needs to consider when buying a bike.
And to all newbies, this has been mentioned time and time again, fit is essential no matter what. If the bike doesn't fit you, it's no good to ride no matter the deal and components. It's not enough you can stand over hte bike and have clearance. The most important measurement is the top tube. If you have difficulty reaching the hoods, the bike is too big or needs adjustments!
heh heh
MAN BIKE.
I like that.
"I ride a man bike "
/easily amused
Hey, my MTB is a manbike! (Titus Locomoto size small) None of the WSD MTB's felt right. That would suck to not be able to change out the fork if you wanted to. I wouldn't buy a bike where that was the case...
Nanci
...except I don't know that I really want to call my dear MTB a manbike because she's, well, a girl. What does that make her? A tomboybike?
Most high end MTBikes, even "man" bikes, are fairly lightweight. My fully weighs around 26 lbs (I could lose probably another 2 - 3 pounds by changing out thefork, cranks and shifters) and the hardtail around 22. That's what price and good components get you. The less money spent, the heavier the bike whch doesn't seem fair to "newbie" riders. They have to work harder than us experienced gals! I do have an older MTBike in my garage - that's vintage (no suspension at all) I bet weighs 40 pounds. Wow! To think I rode that up hills!