Low end mountain bikes.....

**xeney** · 10-01-2006, 09:10 PM

Can I piggyback on this thread to ask a question about upgrading a low-end mountain bike? I have a 2005 base model Rockhopper that I bought because I wasn't sure I would like mountain biking. Today I am sure that I will eventually love mountain biking, but the reality is that I am never going to have a ton of time to spend doing it, because we have to drive to trails, and we are both busy and overscheduled as it is. So it is always going to be a once-in-a-while hobby, and I don't think it is worth it to me to buy a better bike.

But I would like to do some upgrades, mostly because the bike weighs a ton. It is the same frame as the Rockhopper Comp from that year, but I don't remember if that bike was also heavy. All the components are very low-end, though, including easily replaceable things like the stem, the handlebars, the seatpost. (All no-name.) I hate the Tektro brake levers and I've wanted to upgrade them ever since I bought the bike. I am not sure I need a better fork, and that seems like an expensive upgrade anyway. I don't hate the shifting although there is a definitely a knack to getting out of the granny gear; the front derailleur and/or front shifter lever is a little fussy. That gets easier the more I practice so I can live with it.

This may be too broad a question, but basically, what things are worth upgrading and what things aren't? At some point it might make more sense to just unload this and buy a slightly better bike, but I would rather avoid the hassle, all things being equal.

Kitsune06 · 10-01-2006, 09:40 PM

the shifting problems are all adjustment issues, but as a basemodel 'hopper owner, yeah, it's all just as upgradeable as anything else. I don't remember what the naked frame weighs, but you can change out pretty much everything around said frame... and 'Hoppers are pretty sturdy little bikes. Mine is mostly stock yet, but you could lighten her up significantly by getting better rims/wheels, handlebars, maybe seatpost/seat, cranks, tires, etc... Deore came on my model ('03) and it's served me pretty well... and it's still relatively pricey.

**Trek420** · 10-01-2006, 09:48 PM

Bottom of the line GT, but I got Mavic Crossride wheels, much better and lighter

**DirtDiva** · 10-02-2006, 12:52 AM

xeney...
It really depends how much you want to upgrade and how soon. If you were going to do a bunch of things at once, you'd probably end up spending more money than if you just bought a whole new bike. The frame you've got is plenty decent enough though, and well worth keeping and changing out parts as you can afford them. Trek's right (of course

), lighter, stiffer wheels will make a huge difference to your ride. Disc brakes would be a good upgrade too (I'm pretty sure your frame/fork will be disc-ready, but you'll need to check that) if you're looking to improve your bike's performance. You can get not too expensive disc brakes, but the lighter ones are a bit more spendy.

Stems and bars and seatpost are all good places to lose a little weight without breaking the bank (not that you can't break the bank on these items should you so choose...

).

**Trek420** · 10-02-2006, 05:02 AM

DirtDiva "Trek's right (of course

), lighter, stiffer wheels will make a huge difference to your ride."

heh, lighter/stiffer rider would be good too.

But seriously my LBS explained weight in the wheels is rotational weight, easier to get going. Stiffer wheels means less rolling resistance. If I was going to throw good money after bad at the bike that's the best thing to do. It's a cheap bike but it fits sooooo well and now...it's faster.

**southtxrider** · 10-02-2006, 05:22 AM

Ok, I put the Treks down as possibilities (I've rode one of them and liked it but it's the only one I've ridden so no real basis of comparison)

Yes, rideaway is local to me and I did visit them when looking for road bikes - they had a specialized I loved, but it ws $1600 and just more than I could afford or wanted to spend on my first bike.

Anyway I went on their site and found these:

http://rideawaybicycles.com/itemdeta...ogId=39&id=560

http://rideawaybicycles.com/itemdeta...ogId=39&id=558

Is aluminum definitely the way to go? (no rust, lighter) If so that knocks out the first one. Is there any other specifics you can advise me to look for and need for my first, occasional, easy riding mountain bike? I know the V brakes, but anything else - it helps when I don't feel so dumb walking in the shop! LOL

Thanks !!!!!

**Trek420** · 10-02-2006, 05:42 AM

southtxrider "Is aluminum definitely the way to go? (no rust, lighter) If so that knocks out the first one."

Uh, look under my name, see that sub-heading "steel is real"

at this price range steel will be heavy but ride quality may be better.

Same shop, try something like this if it fits.

http://rideawaybicycles.com/itemdeta...ogId=39&id=584

Unless you ride in a skirt there may be no reason for you to have a "step through: frame

And even if you do with a skort you'd be fine.

This kind of frame geometry would be better and may be available in the Giant.

"it helps when I don't feel so dumb walking in the shop! LOL"

Don't feel dumb, and that's one of the signs of a good shop that they answer your questions.

**xeney** · 10-02-2006, 07:04 AM

My husband thought my wheels and also my tires might be a big chunk of the weight -- he's going to swap our wheels on the next ride to see if I can feel a difference. He is very excited that I had fun yesterday so I think I might be getting mountain bike components for Christmas. Awesome.

Steel: his mountain bike is a relatively ancient steel Bianchi that he is never tempted to replace because it is so much lighter than, for instance, my bike. It was pretty low-end, I think, when he bought it ten years ago, but he just keeps upgrading it and I sure couldn't find anything as nice that I could afford when I was looking. (He offered to build up this frame for me but it doesn't come in my size.)

Thanks for the feedback ... I think what I will do is keep riding this one for the next couple of months and get a better feel for what I would like to upgrade/replace, and if it seems like what I want to upgrade and replace immediately is going to be in the $500 range, then I will buy a new bike. Because at least around here, a used/excellent condition Rockhopper can be sold for almost what you paid for it.

**southtxrider** · 10-02-2006, 07:25 AM

I will look at that Specialized. Nice price range

I guess I keep trying to go toward the WSD b/c the only bikes I've climbed on that felt "right" were WSD (Specialized and Trek) I have a short torso and long legs.

The shop I bought my bike from is www.bikeworld.com They did not try to push me towards stuff I didn't need in fact going so far as to tell me NOT to buy a few things I had picked out. So they have scored well with me. They spent over 3 hours with me yesterday getting the bike that fit me right and all the adjustments. So I will prob go back there and look at the Trek MB's again. They had adorable kids bikes too which I am contemplating

Thanks again for the advice!

**xeney** · 10-03-2006, 10:36 AM

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.

**uforgot** · 10-09-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by xeney

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.

**xeney** · 10-09-2006, 08:06 PM

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.

Kitsune06 · 10-09-2006, 08:14 PM

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*

Thread: Low end mountain bikes.....

Thread Tools

Display

what about these?

Thanks Trek :)

Posting Permissions