Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Results 1 to 15 of 28

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    747
    Well, here is a vote in favor of the low-end Specialized if it fits you: yesterday I went to a bike shop to get an idea of how much I would have to spend on a new bike in order to see a significant weight difference. And if I stick with Specialized, I'm going to have to jump up several price points, it looks like. The $800 Rockhopper is just as heavy as the $500 Rockhopper and the $1100 Rockhopper is only slightly lighter, and I am not sure that wasn't my imagination and the fact that they only had it in a very small size. And the $1400 base level Stumpjumper was also pretty heavy. On the other end of the scale, the Hardrocks aren't dramatically heavier than the Rockhoppers. In the 2005's, the frames on all three bikes are really very similar, although the current models are a bit different.

    I could probably get about $300 for my bike but I could also do a whole lot of upgrading for that price differential. So I think I am going to keep it, since the frame is a really good fit -- Treks were a bit lighter in this price range but didn't feel as good to me -- and just plan on upgrading a little every year as I feel like I need to.

    Thanks, everyone, for the advice.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Belle, Mo.
    Posts
    1,778
    Quote Originally Posted by xeney View Post
    Well, here is a vote in favor of the low-end Specialized if it fits you:
    So I think I am going to keep it, since the frame is a really good fit -- Treks were a bit lighter in this price range but didn't feel as good to me -- and just plan on upgrading a little every year as I feel like I need to.

    Thanks, everyone, for the advice.
    Do you have the women's Rockhopper? I test rode those and the Treks. The fit on the Rockhopper (and Hardrock) was perfect! After that I didn't even give the Treks a second glance. I tested the 2006, didn't care for the Burgundy or the matte Hardrock, but this year, I love the colors!

    One of these days I'm gonna have one, I just can't justify it right now when I have a perfectly good Gary Fisher. Even though I'm a tad stretched on it, it doesn't seem to matter as much to me on a mountain bike like it does my road bike.
    Claudia

    2009 Trek 7.6fx
    2013 Jamis Satellite
    2014 Terry Burlington

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    747
    The bike shop didn't have a women's Rockhopper in stock for me to try, but the men's 15" was a great fit.

  4. #4
    Kitsune06 Guest
    My 'hopper is 16". I'm not sure how much she weighs, though, just the frame and wheelset. Outfitted for commuting and errands, though, she's a little heavy.

    For road bikes, I vote also that "Steel is Real" just having read the various facts and testimonials from ladies here. On Mtn bikes, though, I'm not so sure. I'm sure it depends... I like my aluminum bike, though. I'm not sure if the thickness of modern mtb designs is out of necessity for strength, enabled by lighter materials (double butted aluminum) or simply for visual appeal "It's thicker so it must be stronger"... likewise enabled by lighter materials. *shrug*
    Last edited by Kitsune06; 10-09-2006 at 08:17 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •