CHEAP Xc/all mtn bike -- Help me NS

A

alex=

Active member
Tons of karma!!! I know this thread has been made a lot.

I'm looking for a XC or all mountain bike - I live in NC, no downhill here just singletrack and the sort.

Looking for a hardtail to get back into the sport. I have a 12 year old Hard Rock to sell for startup cash, if that would help. I have no idea what to look for on pinkbike.

I am 6'3 or so so I guess I would need a 19.5.

Please help me out NS!
 
I want to keep it under $500. I'm still in high school and don't sell weed so I'm pretty limited bro
 
I used to have a Scott Aspect 60 and it was ~$450. It was an okay bike, but there was a lot more that I wanted out of it. Your best bet would just be to save more more money. I would aim for around 900-1000 to get a bike that will last longer. I know it can be hard though when MTB season is right around the corner and (i assume) you didn't have a source of income during the school year.
 
I don't ride as much as you probably presume but my bike is still not cutting it. it's like 12 years old and is a POS. A GT revel maybe?
 
look on bikes direct. they have some decent bikes in your price range and they are super legit.

just stay near 500 and u can get deore components, rockshox dart 2 or 3. if u want hydro brakes, and a nicer fork you would need to go up 150-200 bucks.
 
Check Craiglist and garage sales. Old pro down the street from me had a garage sale and I got a pretty much brand new full suzy stumpjumper for $150
 
id definitely recommend spending a little more. try to get something with a drive train above deore or x-3, hydraulic brakes, and maybe a fork in the tora line instead of a dart.
 
Deore is pretty much Shimano's base level componentry. Hydro is for hydraulic, hydraulic brakes are rather than rubber pads rubbing against the rim, there is a metal disk mounted to the wheel at the hub and brake pads rub against these

Hydraulic_disc_brake_diagram.gif
 
I would recommend buying a used bike. You'll save a ton of money that way. You should be able to get something good for $500-$1000. I know it's a big range but it never seems like there's good options for used bikes (at least for me in maine anyway).

But if you do buy new, a diamondback response is an excellent choice for your budget. It's fairly tough for a cheaper xc bike. Definitely not a wal-mart bike.

Spending a little more would be worth it in the long run tho.
 
Oh you just mean disk brakes. I didn't know hydro brakes meant disc brakes.

But thanks for the responses, definitely will check those out
 
there are 2 types of disc brakes:

mechanical and hydraulic.

mechanical works in a way similar to rim brakes, in that it uses a cable assembly to clench 2 pads using a hand leaver to create friction to slow the wheel.

hydraulic brakes use hoses and oil to clench the pads together on the disc. they basically work the way car breaks work, by pressurize the oil in the hand leaver and sending the pressure through hoses to the caliper where the oil forces the pads to rub on the disc.

hydraulic brakes will require very little effort to stop and can be used with only one or 2 fingers, they are much more powerful too. yet they do require bleeding the lines and will be hard to fix on the trail.
 
Bump! Got a good reply in PWOM from Tranny_Slammer the other night. Looking for a few more opinions.

What I'm looking for is a dedicated XC trail bike. My home trail is mainly composed of very technical turning, steep climbs. So I want something that can carry momentum well into these, not get hung up on small stumps and rocks, and then has a nice low gearset so I can keep spinning.

I've been riding a Norco Katmandu there for the past two years and it's time to step up the game. The main problems I have on it are pretty much the 'want's I listed above.

Tranny_Slammer recommended XTC 29'er. I've also been looking at the Trek Cobia, and a bunch of stuff from Norco, like the Nitro 6, Charger 9 series, and even the Fluid 6.3.

And personal opinions on these bikes? And I'm a smaller guy at 5'11" 137lbs, but I feel like riding a 29'er will be the way to go. Too big for me? Thanks!
 
You could ride a 29er for sure, it would take some getting used to though. If you're really worried you could get the new rage and go 27.5". Good luck finding one used though, they are still pretty new to the market but it might be just what you are looking for. Personally I can't see myself ever riding a 29er but I would consider 27.5 for an all mountain rig
 
@NinetyFour: I rode my buddy's Cobia, and it's a great bike. It handles well and has very good components all around. That could be a great option too if the price is right. The XTC is lighter, but the Cobia still feels really smooth and fast. You might be able to get one on closeout too. Also, you would most likely be looking at a medium frame.
 
What's going to feel weird about it aside from being a bit higher up/more ground clearance? If it makes for an easier ride and easier climbs though, I'm game for getting used to it.

I've been riding the trail since it was first made (third year on it now) and unfortunately, it's still pretty 'virgin'. There aren't enough people out there riding it, so it's still pretty bumpy, rough, and raw, and that just makes the transition into these steep assed turning climbs a pain in the ass for me. So whatever features in a bike would help overcome that, I'm looking for them.
 
I ride a santa cruz tallboy lt and came from a stumpjumper fsr and basically the 29er is a much bigger bike (also moved from medium to large frame) but also it is not nearly as maneuverable so basically in tight situations i have to be much more carful than friends on 26ers. Still love the 29er and wouldnt give it up for the world. make sure you have spare tubes when riding cus generally noone else can help you with that cus they all have 26in tubes
 
The really only thing you need to get used to is the cornering characteristics of bigger wheels. They will corner a little bit wider, but bikes like the XTC and Cobia can turn very quick (Cannondale on the other hand is a different story...) One more thing is that 29ers can't accelerate quite as fast as a 26er, but it really shouldn't be a problem. Most shops aren't really even stocking mid and high end 26ers anymore.

29ers are:

-faster

-roll better/keep momentum

-climb well

-get over obstacles really easily

-give you better traction (larger contact are with the ground)

-still corner nicely

-more stable due to the gyroscopic force generated by the larger radius of the wheels

-higher ground clearance so you can get over bigger obstacles

 
The benefit's of the 29'ers seem to outweigh that of a 26'er. The Katmandu is heavy and it's only and 8 speed at the rear hub (I'm a bike gaper...) so even though a 29'er may take some more work to accelerate, I don't think it will be much different feeling than it is now on the Kat. Then if you have the added ability to roll over debris and the terrain in these climbs and you're carrying more momentum into it, that seems to just translate to nothing but positives.

Back to the gearing real quick... So obviously the larger the gear on the rear hub, and the smaller the gear at the cranks, the more you will spin as you'll have a torquier, slower, and lower gear ratio. With bikes, as you add a 'speed' to the rear hub, do you usually end up with the same final gear ratio? Or is a larger (or smaller gear) added for more spinning and torque (or less spinning and speed) That's weird to explain coming from a car maintenance background, sorry about that...

Basically with the 10spd of the Nitro and Cobia allow me to spin more than the 8spd on the Katmandu?

Thanks for the solid info guys. I'll take what I've learned with me shopping tomorrow. Hopefully the local shops will have a few of these options in stock so I can find the perfect fit.
 
I would quote the stuff on gearing, but i'm on mobile.

I personally think it matters more the range of ratios that you have rather than the numbers of gears. If a bike with a 3x10 and a bike with a 3x8 (3 referring to the number of front cogs and 8/10 referring to # of rear cogs) have the same ratios in the lowest gear and highest gear, you wont be able to tell a difference IMO.

I personally hate drivetrains with high gears that i feel spin too much. My dad has a Trek X-Caliber (upgrade from cobia) and it has a huge back first gear and a tiny front 1st gear. He is old and out of shape and on pretty much all climbing, he is in the lowest gear. I am young and fit, run 5+ miles every day half of the year, ski a lot of bumps and steeps, ride a singlespeed road bike frequently in a hilly area, mountain bike on trails with a lot of vertical, and seduce the ladies left and right with my sexy legs (cant forget the huge /claim) and i absolutely hate such a low gear. I feel like i am spinning without going anywhere and have very little momentum. So essentially, the lowest couple of gears are completely wasted. BTW I usually ride a base model, 26", Scott Aspect and hardly ever have any problems going over even pretty big obstacles. I however do have moments when i am coming down a trail with some serious speed and i have to slow down and focus more on getting over an obstacle rather than keeping a rythm.

All in all, your best bet is to try out a lot of different bikes. You could even talk to your local shop to see if they would be able to help build you a bike with the gearing you want on a budget. I dont know about how many good bike shops there are in your part of Canadialand.

What is your budget
 
Oh and also, since you mentioned being a bike gaper I would extremely recommened reading up on proper shifting technique (and overall cycling techniche for that matter, go to the library). If you are inproperly shifting you can really fuck up your derailer, derailer hanger, derailer cables, spokes, and your day. 12 miles is a really long walk back if your derailer gets sucked up into your spokes and snaps either your hanger or the derailer itself. I remember a really good MBAction article on the subject i will try to find.
 
Yeah, it's the ratios that count, and the range. And im more or less wondering if the lowest ratio on a 10spd will be a lower final ratio than the lowest ration on a 9spd or 8spd. Or if they would all have a same final gear ratio. But that depends on whats on the bike i guess... Aha wasn't sure how to explain it, I get really wordy sometimes... And I hate spinning too much as well, but I just can't get that momentum into those climbs sometimes, especially when most of the climbs are right after a turn. And I'd far rather spin then be powering my way up a climb, only to have the bike walkout from underneath me. And we have two decent shops in town, and my one buddy I ski with builds bikes (and shreds DJ/park) looking to spend around a grand, plus whatever I can get for selling or trading my old bike in. Sorry this isn't spaced out, NS just won't accept the iPad's paragraphing...
 
Whoops, just missed this. I had to take a few nights learning how to shift. Before I did I was always powering or pushing the bike around the trail, then I'd violently downshift... Snapped a few chains by doing so. Then I finally took a buddy's advice and just spent one night on the open hill portion learning how to get this down and keep 'cadence'. Took some work after that but it helped a lot and relieved some maintainence issues.
 
^yeah, it definately depends on the soecific gearing of the bike. Theoretically you could have the same range of ratios on a sram 1x11 as a heavier 3x10 setup.
 
Exactly. I just don't know whether manufacturers generally just make the range on the sprockets the same but have it finer, or whether they extend the range higher or lower by adding another sprocket. I can't really see it listed on anyone's site, only what the crank gears have for teeth. Lol, I think I'm reading into this way too much. If I'm looking at an XC trail specific bike, it will probably meet the demands and needs of a rider who will be using it on an XC trail... I should just go to bed. Aha thanks guys, I'll try to keep ya updated if I make any plays!
 
I realllllly don't like how 29'ers handle. IMO they feel dead on the trail. Theyre harder to double/pop off things and don't rail tight corners as well. If you ride faster, more open trails a 29 will roll a bit faster and carry a tad more speed, however I ride rocky tech trails chock full of tight corners and doubles and I think 26" wheels still have the advantage. I've been riding mountain bikes for 8 years now and I don't ever see myself owning a 29".

That said, I'd like to give a 27.5" AM bike a whirl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top