# How "bad" are today's beginner bikes for a beginner?



## moxie990 (Apr 30, 2015)

Hey all-

Quick backstory here - up until very recently I lived in San Diego near the beach and only ever needed a beach cruiser to get around. Recently got a new job and had to move up to the Sacramento / Tahoe area and as I'm getting more familiar with the area, I've realized my cruiser sucks up here and that there are a TON of trails around &#8230; so I want to ditch the cruiser and get a bike better suited to the conditions.

Obviously I'm not going to dive right into serious downhill, dropping off cliffs and all that &#8230; so I've focused my search on the very low end of bikes &#8230; looking to keep the purchase around $500 or under. If I had to give a guesstimate, I'd say I will prolly be doing about 60% just cruising around on either paved paths or relatively flat dirt paths as I take my dog out for a run while I ride my bike nearly every single night. The other 40% will be getting out on some trails and possible some downhill at some of the Tahoe resorts, but again - nothing too serious until I up my skill set.

I keep seeing bikes by Gravity and Motobecane that "look the part" (at least to the untrained eye) and when I've done searches for reviews on those brands, the opinions seem to range from "those suck but I own a $4k bike" to the few "I have that bike and I love it." However, it's also very hard to find up to date reviews on those brands as they just don't seem to be as popular as all the bigger names like Trek, Cannondale, etc.

So, I guess my real question is - are these "off name" bikes total junk? Or would they suit someone like myself OK? Looking specifically at ones like the 2016 Gravity 29point1 (http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/gravity/29point1-29er-bikes.htm), 2015 Motobecane 529HT (http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/mountain_bikes/529ht_29er_mountainbikes.htm), Gravity FSX 2.0 (http://bikeshopwarehouse.com/cgi-bin/BSW_STOR20.cgi?Action=Details&ProdID=391) and similar.

In a lot of posts I've seen people giving their info, so for what it's worth, I'm 6' and about 190lbs. Happy to give any other info that anyone thinks would help out too! Thanks in advance for any pointers!!


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Youre going to kill yourself riding a 500 dollar bike at the resorts! They rent big bikes there, its worth going that way.

Those bikes are just fine, but theyre intended for light duty trail riding. Youll be ok if you stick with that


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

There's a huge gap in capability expectations between people who ride bikes on paths and people are riding technical rocky singletrack. A good all mountain hardtail will do both, but that's a fair bit of research required to find a good one -- if you're on a really tight budget, just get yourself a good solid path bike (decent drivetrain, usable brakes), then rent a FS bike from the resort if you want to do much downhill stuff. There are some pretty tame parts of Tahoe, but learning skills on a bike that's at or beyond its limits is typically a recipe for learning lessons the hard and painful way.

It's not that there's something extra lame with those bikes, but the parts bolted onto them are not designed around multiple G landings, or going over rough terrain at speed - those coil spring forks are good at soaking up small bumps on bike paths, but on rough terrain just mean the handlebar winds up 3" lower in short order as it bottoms out instantly, still doesn't rebound quickly enough to snatch grip after compressing. Cheap drivetrains with square cranks will strip under 300lb of load no matter how they're torqued... and that's something I can accomplish on flat pavement. Lame brakes lack modulation AND power, lame tires can somehow manage to lack grip, lack suppleness, be heavy, and still roll poorly.
The full suspension ones in that price range can also suffer from being wildly inefficient in exchange for rear squish (basically that full suspension is converting pedaling power to heat as much as forward motion, and since the air/coil suspension isn't working super well it doesn't really help a ton over rough stuff in exchange).

The issue with reviews on those bikes is that most of the people who buy them don't have experience with better stuff, and are quick to say 'as good as' or apply superlatives without context. Some other problems are that the spec seems deceptively nicer than it is (it might be XT, but if it's 2011 spec XT in an odd configuration that nobody bought because it's weird, it's still worse than contemporary Deore stuff in smarter axle/rotor/cog combinations). I'm quite sure that to those reviewers, I come across as a total d-bag because of how I feel about those parts.
I have owned a $500 bike (Diamondback Overdrive)with that same fork, using a comparable drivetrain and brakes/wheels/tires. At 230lb riding relatively tame XC singletrack I managed to destroy the cranks, warp the brakes, knock the wheels out of true, strip the freehub, but fall in love with the geometry and tires. I now own the carbon version of the same bike (DB Overdrive Carbon) and love it, but because all of those problems are fixed on a bike that costs 3x as much. I go on rides that are 40+ miles on a whim - the older bike couldn't have survived being ridden by me for 40 miles period, unless I was throwing parts at it every five miles.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

Depends on the type of beginner i guess...
It's true that a bike with too low end components will fail quickly, if it's not the frame, the rest of the components will get start getting loose/break/fail much more quickly than the ones someone would find in an actual bike.
What i mean with type of beginner, is that there are beginner than don't weight +200 lbs, so most of the bikes within that price range will hold up just fine as far as they are properly set up. 
No need to have Deore+ groupset + Air forks when some don't even know how to properly sit on the bike, or how to position yourself uphill/downhill.
Those are some serious beginners, and most of them probably don't know if they are gonna like the sport in first place, so why spending more? 
For me, 500$ is an awful lot of money, at least where i am from, that's a lot for a bicycle.
I could sustain my self for a whole year with that money. 
But i understand the value of the bike. It's another vehicle, so it should be just as expensive and reliable.
But for the ones that are not sure that mountain biking is for them, spending more than that, just to try out is not a good idea.
If the bike is properly set up, and the guy is a real beginner (by beginner i mean someone that won't bomb downhill at speed without knowing what to do first, that would be a mad beginner), then those bikes should be JUST fine.
They can even start learning more about bikes. How to adjust stuff, replace stuff, and of course, the most basic techniques of mountain biking in general. And yeah...how to avoid getting into situations that they are not ready for, neither their bike.

Now, if the beginner is already into the sport, but hasn't practiced in some years. Or if he knows a little about mtb, but is still not that advanced, then yes, of course you're gonna need a good bike, so it can hold up until your skill goes up. You will end up needing a better bike anyway, but buying a damn expensive bike while being a beginner...i'm totally against that, sorry.

And last, if the beginner is one heavy guy, then he's gonna need something strong, and i agree with the fact that a $500 off-brand bike might fail at that job.

P.D: At 150 lbs, riding a walmart bike, but knowing a lot of stuff already, i need a better bike.
I'm going for any hardtail that makes a good deal, as long as the fork isn't lower than an XCM.
The XCM feels like butter to me. I know that's what i need for now, why bother paying more for a bike that got Rockshox of Fox? I'm a beginner, i don't need that just yet.
So i'm beginner level 2. And my bike never failed to me, because it was properly set up, and i'm not crazy when riding cause i understand that i'm not too good yet to manage some types of terrain. Neither is my bike.

Hope that was clear enough, grammar isn't my thing, in case you got confused somewhere in there...  (i bet you did)


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

I'd like to know how much better is a $750 or $1200 Trek or Specialized or other quality bike than a $500 GT or Fuji.

I don't know that answer. 

I went with a $400 GT because I planned to use it once a month and don't expect to ride it too hard. After only three weeks and about 50 miles I've found I like trail riding more than I even expected. I'm also 220 pounds. 

So far the bike has preformed well. I'm unsure if it will hold up over time; I'm also unsure how much better a nicer bike would hold up. If it doesn't I'll have to buy something else.

I'm looking forward to riding the heck out of it regardless.


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

moxie990 said:


> Hey all-
> 
> Quick backstory here - up until very recently I lived in San Diego near the beach and only ever needed a beach cruiser to get around. Recently got a new job and had to move up to the Sacramento / Tahoe area and as I'm getting more familiar with the area, I've realized my cruiser sucks up here and that there are a TON of trails around &#8230; so I want to ditch the cruiser and get a bike better suited to the conditions.
> 
> ...


You are all over the place. Bike Path, Singletrack XC trail, and Downhill Resorts are 3 wholey different worlds.

Bike path, you don't need a suspension, you probably don't even want a suspension. A Hybrid would be ideal, or a at least a rigid fork mtb.

Singletrack XC/Trail, 100-120mm travel hardtail that is durable seems to start around 900-1100. No first hand experience, but many seem to claim the Suntour XC- line of forks use plastic parts and are not suitable for trail.

Downhill Resorts. Seems to use specially beefy built bikes with long travel suspension. Rent these.

All 3 Motobecane/Gravity bikes you listed are inefficient for Bike Paths, and questionable durability for Singletrack XC/Trail. And you will hurt yourself on a Downhill. I vote total junk.

If you want to pinch pennies using MailOrder. Get an Airborne Guardian.
$600 gets a well built trail worthy though entry level Rockshox fork, X5 drivetrain, and hydraulic disc.
Airborne Bicycles . Guardian


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Tires are often poor quality.
The fork is the part that underperforms first right with the tires.
If you put a good mid range air fork on a lower cost bike performance takes a major jump.
The cost is about $200 up. 
Brakes and wheels next.


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

gr7070 said:


> *I'd like to know how much better is a $750 or $1200 Trek or Specialized or other quality bike than a $500 GT or Fuji.*
> 
> I don't know that answer.
> 
> ...


Why make that comparison? Trek and Specialized make $500 bikes.

Why not compare a $500 Trek/Specialized to a $500 GT/Fuji
Or a $1200 Trek/Specialized to a $1200 GT/Fuji

Or hell, if you want to get crazy. Compared a $4000 Fuji to a $500 Trek.

Why would you handicap one brand, comparing their lesser model, to another brands higher model. I guess I don't understand the logic in where you are coming from, or where you are trying to go.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

gr7070 said:


> I'd like to know how much better is a $750 or $1200 Trek or Specialized or other quality bike than a $500 GT or Fuji.
> 
> I don't know that answer.
> 
> ...


Much better. If you don't know the answer, then no bashing higher models. If you know anything about bikes, you'll know how much better a nicer bike would hold up. If you ride once a month and not too hard, then you probably won't notice much. If you get into technical stuff, then that's when you start appreciating the better bikes.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

The formula for even the bigger brands (Trek, Specialized, Giant, GT, etc.) to make a $500 bike is this:
Take the frame from their $900 bike (since that frame costs them $80 to make, and they can profitably retail it for $200 if they had to) 
Try to spend only $200 on the rest of the parts to make the bike - this means cheap thin-skinned tires, often integrated hub/cassette drivetrain setups (not actually bad for a path bike or budget XC deal), cheap brakes, and very cheap forks. 

Cheap isn't bad, but it's one of those things where a $40 to manufacture fork isn't going to have spectacular performance beyond soaking up small and spread out bumps on bike paths for less than demanding riders... same deal with brakes and the budget oriented wheelsets - they do their job well, but it's like asking a Hyundai Accent to do a Jeep trail in Moab.
If speed isn't a priority, those bikes are actually fine on cross-country single track trails - worst case a couple sections might need walking, but if you see guys on cyclocross bikes on a trail, they're GTG with $500 bikes too.

The biggest thing about moving from the $500 bikes to the $900 bikes is that the entire component set is getting upgraded with each step. Suntour offers their $200 upgrade to the Raidon fork (which IS awesome, seriously), but that only upgrades the fork... spend $300 more on the bike and it's a better drivetrain, better wheels, better tires, better brakes, better cockpit parts... spend $400 more and it includes a better fork too. Up until the $1000 range trail hardtails there are no diminishing returns - there are actually stacking benefits up until there, because having solid hydraulic brakes, a good air sprung fork (easily user tunable), reliable and quick-shifting drivetrain, with stout wheels and usable tires means being able to enjoy a lot more trails (and gives up nothing for riding around on bike paths - usually just plain better). There ARE diminishing returns for cost that start to kick in after that - usually high end components that start piling on cost for weight savings or incremental performance gains, but the reason those $1200 bikes are recommended so highly is that they are actually a better value, safer, and will also retain resale value considerably better for all of those reasons.

Ride the poop out of what you have, see how you most enjoy using it (I seem to have nearly as much fun tooling around on pavement with my wife on my high end carbon XC-Race bike as I do testing my skill on chunky singletrack), and if/when you find yourself looking at a new bike, then start reading a whole lot more and figure out what makes sense. Some important details (your skill level, weight) will probably change in the interim - for the better - so don't preemptively stress about that.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

Menel said:


> Why make that comparison? Trek and Specialized make $500 bikes.
> 
> Why not compare a $500 Trek/Specialized to a $500 GT/Fuji
> Or a $1200 Trek/Specialized to a $1200 GT/Fuji
> ...


I happen to agree with you. I didn't mention it as I already made that comparison and went with the $400 GT instead of the slightly more expensive Trek and Specialized.

The reason I mention it as I did is my next line of logic was the next step up in price point.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> Much better. If you don't know the answer, then no bashing higher models. If you know anything about bikes, you'll know how much better a nicer bike would hold up. If you ride once a month and not too hard, then you probably won't notice much. If you get into technical stuff, then that's when you start appreciating the better bikes.


I'm not sure how you inferred I was bashing higher prices makes/models in my post. There is no such thing in my post.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

We've strayed from the original question: "How "bad" are today's beginner bikes for a beginner?"

Today's beginner bikes are much better than beginner bikes even 10 years ago. (Can you still buy a fully ridgid, steel-framed, bike with v-brakes?) I think aluminum frames, and disc brakes (either mech or fluid) are far more common at the beginner level these days.

By definition beginner bikes will have lower-end components, but that's nothing new. But if you are really asking, are beginner bikes better today, 2015, then they have been in the past? You bet!


----------



## moxie990 (Apr 30, 2015)

> Youre going to kill yourself riding a 500 dollar bike at the resorts! They rent big bikes there, its worth going that way.





> It's not that there's something extra lame with those bikes, but the parts bolted onto them are not designed around multiple G landings, or going over rough terrain at speed





> If the bike is properly set up, and the guy is a real beginner (by beginner i mean someone that won't bomb downhill at speed without knowing what to do first, that would be a mad beginner), then those bikes should be JUST fine.





> You are all over the place. Bike Path, Singletrack XC trail, and Downhill Resorts are 3 wholey different worlds.


hahaha ... ok, so I guess my ignorance to the sport really showed through in my first post! Let me be clear - I'm a total beginner! I've never ridden any downhill / single track / ski resort trails in my life. Multiple G landings - those are gonna be a little ways out at least, I'd imagine. I definitely would not just take any old bike up to the top of a mountain and bomb down with no regard at this point either.

With that said, I guess what I'm looking for is a bike that CAN handle some lighter trails (In my head, I'm thinking of hiking trails with some smaller rocks, roots, etc. More than a fire road, but not trying to be in a Red Bull commercial by next week or anything either) and won't be completely out of place doing a couple miles around the neighborhood with the dog. Perhaps those two things are exclusive and I should keep the cruiser for around the neighborhood, but I figured (perhaps incorrectly) that if a bike can handle a trail, it can handle a paved road / level dirt paths. On the flip side, I don't want to spend $400 - $500 on a bike that's going to break the first time I take it off a 3ft drop or hit a rock that's bigger than 2".

I've continued my research and by far the most agreed upon thing seems to be that any full suspension bike in this price range is usually garbage. I'm more than OK with that ... makes sense too and if I ever did get to a resort, I can rent one as you all have mentioned. So that means I can narrow the search at least a little bit. Are there any other bikes in this range that you think I should add to the list? I plan on getting out and testing as many bikes as I can over the next couple weeks before I buy, so any suggestions are welcomed!


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

moxie990 said:


> Hey all-
> 
> Quick backstory here - up until very recently I lived in San Diego near the beach and only ever needed a beach cruiser to get around. Recently got a new job and had to move up to the Sacramento / Tahoe area and as I'm getting more familiar with the area, I've realized my cruiser sucks up here and that there are a TON of trails around &#8230; so I want to ditch the cruiser and get a bike better suited to the conditions.
> 
> ...


Are you any good with a wrench?

I have bought 2 mail order bikes in my life. They both required some work to get them how I like them using the parts that were provided. Not difficult for some.

I have also seen some LBS-assembled bikes that were not up to the task of hard riding either, though.

Assuming that everything in the $500 bike box is workable (and they usually are), and you assemble it correctly, I think you will be fine if your skilz are on par with the bike. Of course if you are ready for DH, then the bike will suck. Regardless, the first things you will grow to dislike are the "suspension" fork and the brakes if you really push it. Not that you can't ride it hard, but this is why people ride $3K+ bikes. I'd rather have a rigid bike with V-brakes than a bike with a cheap suspension fork and cheap disc brakes.

I ride my one bike everywhere. I have other tires for varying conditions, but I don't worry about what the terrain is. If conditions don't exactly match the bike, I ride differently to match the terrain. People have been doing this for years and years.

I will say that I think ~180# is some sort of magic dividing line between cycling weight classes: <180#, bike parts don't break as frequently; >180# (yourself included), you better beef up your rig a bit, esp. wheels and brakes. If you can't upgrade this early in the game, then make sure they are working/true/tensioned/adjusted/correct tire pressure/etc. at all times. If the bike comes with cheap plastic pedals you should throw them away.

-F


----------



## VideoboyMatt (Feb 11, 2014)

Ok, I have helped a lot of friends buy their first real bikes, and do group rides with newbies. $500 is the beginning of bikes that won't disintegrate when you take them on a moderately rough trail. That does not mean they are great bikes, it just mean they are better than Walmart bikes. 

The next real tier is the $800-1,000 bikes. These bikes generally include designs that are able to accommodate upgrades easily without major overhauls. Yes you can upgrade a $500, but those usually have 7 or 8 speeds, and no one makes high end parts in those speeds, especially 7 (never ever buy a 7 speed bike). The $800 bikes come with 9-speed, and you can swap derailleurs all the way to XT fairly easily. You will notice the frames are better made, and the forks have 32mm stancions (the silver part of the fork that slides up and down), and often have a lockout feature (allowing you to make the fork rigid if you want to ride on paved road). This means the fork will be more stiff, and not flex when you hit it hard. $500 bikes have 28mm stanchions, and are often of heavier materials. 

Then it goes to the ~$1100-2600 bikes, these bikes are the beginning of the really good stuff. They are often coming with Deore, SlX and sometimes XT components, higher end air/oil forks that are lighter. The frames start to be lighter materials, higher quality aluminum, or even scandium, sometimes even carbon. This is the beginning of the level of bikes that you wouldn't be totally embarrassed to show up to a race with, and are great bikes for enthusiasts who ride often. 

After that you are getting into really specific bikes for really specific uses, boutique brands,semi pro, pro level stuff, downhill bikes, XC race bikes, and so on. Newbies really don't need a $3k bike as their first if they are just getting started. The difference between Deore and SLX, or XT won't be as noticeable to some one who isn't riding hard, and all the time. When you start getting to XT, XTR, SRAM X9, XXO, XX1, and so on, you know exactly what you want, and are willing to pay to have it exactly that way. You will see all sorts of custom setups, 1x11 gearing, 2x10, 1x10, special sized sprockets.

I would say, it is worth paying a bit more for 32mm stanchions, at least 9 speed Alivio components, preferably Deore. These bikes should do you well for a long time, and you will most likely end up keeping it as a loaner bike to friends when you get good, or you will want to upgrade it till you think it's time for a new bike. Most $500 aren't worth upgrading, as you will spend as much or more on the parts than the bike is worth.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Keep the cruiser for neighborhood riding unless you have major space issues or spouse complaints.

If you're just starting to learn mtb, a $500 will be fine to start learning. If you never find yourself leaving fire roads and easy trails, then it'll be all you ever need. It could handle some abuse if you start to dabble in more difficult stuff, but if you start to enjoy that kind of riding, you'll want a new bike eventually.

If you want to try out the downhill stuff at the resorts, just rent a bike for the day. 

I started on a $300 rigid bike 17 years ago. It started life as a basic riding/campus bike, and then I found mtb. I wore things out fast on that bike once I found mtb trails in college. I upgraded soon after that. The 2nd bike was a $550 hardtail. The fork still wasn't anything to write home about, but it was light years better. I had it for over 10 years before selling it (in great shape, mind you), to a guy just starting out. My wife started on a $500 hardtail, also. 10 years ago. She still has that bike, and it's in pretty good shape. The fork has some rust on the stanchions, unfortunately. I want to put a rigid carbon fork on it to lighten it up and make it better for general riding.


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

moxie990 said:


> hahaha ... ok, so I guess my ignorance to the sport really showed through in my first post! Let me be clear - I'm a total beginner! I've never ridden any downhill / single track / ski resort trails in my life. Multiple G landings - those are gonna be a little ways out at least, I'd imagine. I definitely would not just take any old bike up to the top of a mountain and bomb down with no regard at this point either.
> 
> With that said, I guess what I'm looking for is a bike that CAN handle some lighter trails (In my head, I'm thinking of hiking trails with some smaller rocks, roots, etc. More than a fire road, but not trying to be in a Red Bull commercial by next week or anything either) and won't be completely out of place doing a couple miles around the neighborhood with the dog. Perhaps those two things are exclusive and I should keep the cruiser for around the neighborhood, but I figured (perhaps incorrectly) that if a bike can handle a trail, it can handle a paved road / level dirt paths. On the flip side, I don't want to spend $400 - $500 on a bike that's going to break the first time I take it off a 3ft drop or hit a rock that's bigger than 2".
> 
> I've continued my research and by far the most agreed upon thing seems to be that any full suspension bike in this price range is usually garbage. I'm more than OK with that ... makes sense too and if I ever did get to a resort, I can rent one as you all have mentioned. So that means I can narrow the search at least a little bit. Are there any other bikes in this range that you think I should add to the list? I plan on getting out and testing as many bikes as I can over the next couple weeks before I buy, so any suggestions are welcomed!


"Perhaps those two things are exclusive and I should keep the cruiser for around the neighborhood, but I figured (perhaps incorrectly) that if a bike can handle a trail, it can handle a paved road / level dirt paths. On the flip side, I don't want to spend $400 - $500 on a bike that's going to break the first time I take it off a 3ft drop or hit a rock that's bigger than 2". "

It's just lack of efficiency. Knobby tires have higher rolling resistance, less grip. Front suspension is heavier, and the bounce eats some of your power from pedaling. On top of that, cheap suspension bikes are heavy and blah.
If you have a bike path bike, try to keep it.

Can you name, url us some of the trails you want to ride?

Take a close look at the Airborne Guardian I linked. $600 isn't far out of your budget, and it's a far better bike all around than anything you've listed. In many ways, it's on par with many $900-1100 Trek/Cannondale/etc.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

tehllama said:


> The formula for even the bigger brands (Trek, Specialized, Giant, GT, etc.) to make a $500 bike is this:
> Take the frame from their $900 bike (since that frame costs them $80 to make, and they can profitably retail it for $200 if they had to)
> Try to spend only $200 on the rest of the parts to make the bike - this means cheap thin-skinned tires, often integrated hub/cassette drivetrain setups (not actually bad for a path bike or budget XC deal), cheap brakes, and very cheap forks.
> 
> ...


That's an excellent post. You clearly see the root of the question - you're reference of a potential diminishing return is excellent recognition.

You also clearly think there is no wasted money on the lower cost upgrades. That's the real issue at discussion here, imo.

You may very well be correct! Unfortunately we don't really have anything more than a bunch of individuals anecdotal evidence. That's the biggest concern to me.

There's no objective evidence. No significant, random sample. Humans are terrible at recalling these kinds of things and doing so objectively.

It's an interesting question to me. I'm very open to the $1200 Trek being significantly better (I own an $800 one for commuting), but I'm also uncertain of the right answer and I'm very certain that none of us has any worthy data to support any answer.

Interesting discussion.


----------



## moxie990 (Apr 30, 2015)

Menel said:


> Can you name, url us some of the trails you want to ride?
> 
> Take a close look at the Airborne Guardian I linked. $600 isn't far out of your budget, and it's a far better bike all around than anything you've listed. In many ways, it's on par with many $900-1100 Trek/Cannondale/etc.


Mountain Bike Trails near Sacramento and Sierra Foothills

I'd say this link has most of what I'd be riding on. I'm new to the area though as well, so I'm not sure this is an exhaustive list of all the trails in my area.

That Airborne looks really nice actually ... is there something comparable in terms of riding position / geometry, at least somewhat comparable anyway, that I could test out at a local shop? I wouldn't want to spend $150 extra and find out I don't even like the way I fit on it. I say $150 extra, because I've started to settle on the 29point1. It hit me that yes, I'm a beginner and need a beginner's bike. The 29point1 seems to fit that bill pretty well, and it's only $450! This Airborne has me rethinking that though as it seems like literally ever component, save for maybe the wheels, is better than the Gravity. Lots to consider with breaking into this sport, that's for sure!!


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

gr7070 said:


> It's an interesting question to me. I'm very open to the $1200 Trek being significantly better (I own an $800 one for commuting), but I'm also uncertain of the right answer and I'm very certain that none of us has any worthy data to support any answer.


I'm quite sure that I err on the side of having too much bike most of the time - and probably advise others to do the same... but I ride like an idiot a lot of the time, and have the mechanical gift of breaking stuff even if it isn't necessary. Any objective evidence would point towards most hardcore mountain bikers bring way more capability to the trail than they need (my long travel FS bike flatters my skills, not so much my fitness - my XC hardtail flatters my fitness but points out every single deficit in my bike handling skills), but the flipside of that is that if a bike being $300 more expensive means it has the capability to keep a rider out of one bad crash (tires and brakes this absolutely applies to, slightly less so suspension and frame) then the cost of medical expenses dwarfs any cost savings.

Honestly, cheap bikes now are really quite decent - the Airborne pricing is particularly impressive for each bike at various price levels. If you're willing to respect your limits on XC type singletrack, it'll serve you well there, and be outstanding at smoother stuff. You've also hit on the really critical part - being able to size the bike correctly is massive (just having the right weight distribution and being comfortable handling the bike is actually worth more than having slightly higher end parts on a bike that doesn't quite fit).


----------



## shortnangry (Nov 16, 2014)

Do not get a cheap full suspension bike. Go with a hardtail. The FS will be junk and you won't get value out of it. If you are doing any kind of downhill or resort riding, rent an appropriate bike on-site. For around the town and path riding an entry-level hardtail is fine. Also, rather than ordering a bike on-line, see what the LBS has. With an on-line order you'll have to assemble and adjust the bike. An LBS would do it but will make you pay for it. Better off just buying a professionally assembled and adjusted bike. Many companies have more affordable offerings at or about your price range. Giant, Jamis, and Cannondale come to mind, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.


----------



## Paulsmith55 (Jan 16, 2015)

Harold said:


> Keep the cruiser for neighborhood riding unless you have major space issues or spouse complaints.
> 
> If you're just starting to learn mtb, a $500 will be fine to start learning. If you never find yourself leaving fire roads and easy trails, then it'll be all you ever need. It could handle some abuse if you start to dabble in more difficult stuff, but if you start to enjoy that kind of riding, you'll want a new bike eventually.
> 
> ...


Harold, you nailed it again. The cruiser is still a good bike for paved trails but I'm sure you could find a $500 quality mountain bike on Craigslist. If you're indifferent on wheel size you can find a 26" bike for cheap.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

You can probably get a 1500 dollar used bike for 500. Its definitely the way to go. My bike was about $3500 full retail, but im only about $1800 out of pocket. New $500 bikes are kinda silly. A well worn used bike at that price will hold up and last longer.


----------



## nightvisionmiami (Dec 29, 2014)

Don't buy a department store bike. Those definitely will not hold up to the trail after a few rides. They are to go riding in the park with your kids or on paved trails.

1. You can go with a new hardtail which will run you a bit higher than $500 but you get warranty, your LBS will usually give you a free bike fitting, and free adjustments after you ridden for a few weeks. 

2. You can go with a used bike which you will get more bike for the same amount of money you buy the new hardtail but you will have to pay for a bike fitting and any tune-up the bike needs.

Once you ride for a few weeks you will know if you love it or just like it.


----------



## LFC1405 (Mar 24, 2015)

+1 for the used. Bought a hand me down from an aquaintance. $600 got me a decent aluminum frame, midgrade 100mm Marzocchi fork, xtr drivetrain, upper mid grade avid hydraulic brakes, decent tires with half their life left set up tubeless. I have been on it for just about a year and am now looking to upgrade.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

Straight up: Today's beginner bikes are better than they have ever been. JMHO.


----------



## AndyRx7 (Feb 27, 2007)

If you want to see whether you like mountain biking or not, and try out some bikes, look for a demo day near you. Bike shops and manufacturers often put these on. Many of the bikes will be way out of your intended price range but you'll get to try them for free and see what it's all about, assuming the trails are within your abilities. This should give you a good baseline for the overall experience with a decent bike. If you do decide to get into mountain biking, I would personally stretch the budget a bit further if possible, so you have a bike that lasts you a bit longer, but certainly one can make do and have fun for less. I know a few not-super-serious people who ride craigslist hardtails (specialized stump jumpers can be had cheap) and have tons of fun on cross-country trails. On the other hand though, once you're sure you do want to get into it, I don't see anything wrong with jumping right into a quality bike if you can afford it. There isn't any rule that says 'beginners' can't ride nice bikes.


----------



## Tracer650 (Nov 19, 2012)

At $500 a bike from your lbs isn't really good for more then rail trail or double track. Stepping up into the $800 range can get your something that will be much more manageable on single track and steeper terrain. You will get much better drive train something in the shimano 27 speed flavor, a suntour fork with a hydraulic damper cartridge and some basic hydraulic disc brakes from pro max or tektro. The fork with a damper is going to keep the front end under control on your more technical features vs the $500 bike which will have a pogo stick for a fork. The better drive train will last longer, shift smoother and shift better under torque. Avoid any sram components under x7. Their really not very good. Also keep in mind almost all bikes will need a pedal upgrade as the majority come with cheap nylon resin pedals


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

Tracer650 said:


> At $500 a bike from your lbs isn't really good for more then rail trail or double track. Stepping up into the $800 range can get your something that will be much more manageable on single track and steeper terrain. You will get much better drive train something in the shimano 27 speed flavor, a suntour fork with a hydraulic damper cartridge and some basic hydraulic disc brakes from pro max or tektro. The fork with a damper is going to keep the front end under control on your more technical features vs the $500 bike which will have a pogo stick for a fork. The better drive train will last longer, shift smoother and shift better under torque. Avoid any sram components under x7. Their really not very good. Also keep in mind almost all bikes will need a pedal upgrade as the majority come with cheap nylon resin pedals


 Really X5 no good? Honest question, all my bikes have been Shimano.
At one point Trek XCaliber 8 was on top of my shopping list, $1100 with X5, race geo, Rockshox with 32mm stanchion etc.

Good bikes typically have NO pedals, a bike shop might toss in some nylon platforms as a goodwill gesture for some noob buying more bike than they realize... But
Neither my old starter Roubaix marked down from 1000 to 600 at PerformanceBike
Nor my custom Lynskey
Nor my most recent Marin mtb.


----------



## Tracer650 (Nov 19, 2012)

X5 and x4 doesn't last. The shifters use cheaper plastics and the derailler pivots get sloppy fairly quick. X5 isn't the worst but as somebody who does bicycle service I believe you are better off with the shimano at that level. 

And yes you are right most high end bikes don't come with pedals especially in the 2k+ range. However a lot of bikes do come with cheap pedals. Like I said prepare to spend money on pedals as well.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

what do you mean by "doesn't last"?

sure, x4 and x5 won't last as long as x7, but what does that really mean to a beginner? not much, really. I don't think switching brands at that price point is going to matter very much. It's sorta like pissing in the ocean to raise sea level. It makes such a small difference that it's not really worth it. no cheap shifters will last that long if they're used hard and not taken care of.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

Is it just me or the mountain bikers that already "tasted" a good bike, can't think of a single good thing about beginner bikes?
In MY opinion, that's exactly why they are don't beginners anymore, but the ones that buy entry level bikes are beginners, so why would they actually care about a component lasting longer than another one when they probably don't even understand how that specific component works?. 
They are beginner for a reason, they won't be racing so soon, they won't be going too fast cause they probably know they are not ready, they won't go on hard or technical trails without having the skill first, so the problem of a component not lasting long enough is useless.
Define "long enough". Obviously comparing a X5 to a XX1 is a big jump on quality and...well, everything. But only the ones that have used similar quality components can compare them, specially because they ride harder, faster and more technical trails, so they actually need a component that last longer.
But the real beginners just don't. 

But now, like i said, if the "beginner" actually wants to graduate from an older or lower end bicycle, then he must know about bikes and mtb. In that case, then yes, get the best bang for the buck you can afford.
But for beginner beginners...just no. 

I'm about to graduate from a Tourney groupset to a Deore/Alivio groupset, and from an off brand fork to a Suntour XCM. And i won't even think about it for a long time cause when i get the skill to actually need an upgrade in my components, i would have learned a lot. And enjoyed a lot.
But now, i just don't need more, i'm still a beginner. Most of you guys are not, so stop saying beginner bikes "won't last". You won't ever need them cause you are already graduated.
Beginners haven't.


----------



## moxie990 (Apr 30, 2015)

I've been stalking CL in attempts to see what else is out there, and this is one of the first ones I've come across that seems to fit my price point that isn't a Walmart bike that people are trying to pawn off as a $4k bike (people really suck for doing that, btw).

Giant Talon 29er mountain bike

How's that compare to the Airborne Guardian or the Gravity 29.1? They don't list specs in the ad, but found them on Giant website Talon 29er (2015) | Giant Bicycles | United States

To my VERY untrained eye, I feel like the components are pretty similar to the 29.1, but I'd love a little feedback from people much more knowledgeable than me!


----------



## nightvisionmiami (Dec 29, 2014)

moxie990 said:


> I've been stalking CL in attempts to see what else is out there, and this is one of the first ones I've come across that seems to fit my price point that isn't a Walmart bike that people are trying to pawn off as a $4k bike (people really suck for doing that, btw).
> 
> Giant Talon 29er mountain bike
> 
> ...


Talon components are just slightly below the Gravity. Also the seatpost, handlebar, saddle, etc are mostly recognized name brand parts while Giant uses their own brand.

List of SHimano groupset from top (best component groupset) to bottom (economic groupset).

Groupset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Tracer650 (Nov 19, 2012)

Harold said:


> what do you mean by "doesn't last"?
> 
> sure, x4 and x5 won't last as long as x7, but what does that really mean to a beginner? not much, really. I don't think switching brands at that price point is going to matter very much. It's sorta like pissing in the ocean to raise sea level. It makes such a small difference that it's not really worth it. no cheap shifters will last that long if they're used hard and not taken care of.


Is it really that hard to understand? The shimano components will continue charging on long after the sram x4/x5 craps out. Honestly I work on all bikes from department store **** boxes that weight 50 pounds that hardly work to xtr and dura ace. I see all this **** go though it's life cycle and I replace more busted up and worn out x4/x5 crap while shimano keeps trucking on. X7 really isn't that great either. I'm riding it on my fat bike right now and would be happier if it had the new nine speed shimano alivio. Probably would have made the bike a lot cheaper too.

So what does it mean to a beginner. A BETTER BIKE THAT LASTS LONGER


----------



## Tracer650 (Nov 19, 2012)

The giant is a great deal and the frame takes a hot steamy dump all over any gravity branded bike.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Thing is you have no idea how those other people's bikes are cared for.

You also haven't explained why the sram stuff doesn't last as long. What is going wrong?

You say you are a mech but you are lacking heavily in useful detail.

You are effectively saying "this stuff is crap. Trust me, I am a mechanic" yet you provide no supporting evidence and frankly I do NOT trust you just because you say it on the internet.

And also even if you are a mechanic, it doesn't mean you are right. Plenty of crap mechanics out there.


----------



## Tracer650 (Nov 19, 2012)

Harold said:


> Thing is you have no idea how those other people's bikes are cared for.
> 
> You also haven't explained why the sram stuff doesn't last as long. What is going wrong?
> 
> ...


Simply put it wears out. Sloppy shifters and loose pivots in the derailleurs. The shifter is basically all plastic and they crack. They don't shift as well under torque either. Add some slop to the pivots and a it gets even worse.

_edited by moderator_


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Tracer650 said:


> Simply put it wears out. Sloppy shifters and loose pivots in the derailleurs. The shifter is basically all plastic and they crack. They don't shift as well under torque either. Add some slop to the pivots and a it gets even worse.
> 
> _edited by moderator_


:skep so Shimano's beginner level shifters AREN'T all plastic inside? I've seen every brand of shifter wear out. yeah, more expensive ones shift nicer for longer. but they will all bite the dust eventually. frankly I don't think this is something a beginner needs to be overly concerned with. If you have a budget, you have a budget. you aren't going to have many choices within that budget. If you're looking at $500 bikes, you will have limited quality choices. they will all wear out quickly if they're not taken care of, or ridden really hard. it's a beginner bike.


----------



## shortnangry (Nov 16, 2014)

The Talon and Guardian are spec'd similarly. It's entry Shimano vs entry SRAM. Biggest difference is the Guardian has Rock Shox fork whereas the Takon has a Sun Tour. Guardian also has a step up in Tektro's brake line. I'm not a Sun Tour fan and would prefer the Rock Shox. I don't see specs for the Gravity. I also didn't see geo for the Talon. A big factor to consider is that with Airborne you're on your own for assembly and adjustment. It's not rocket science, but even if you're handy, if you're not familiar with setting up bikes you won't get it right. If you go that way have someone knowledgeable set it up.


----------



## sleepyguy1001 (May 26, 2014)

I'm not the technical guru that most people are on here, but I've only been riding for a year. I bought a Moto from BikesDirect, I thought I might enjoy a little light singletrack riding once I discovered what it was, but I didn't want to spend a fortune out of the gate in case I found it wasn't really for me. The bike was/is fine for the entry level stuff I have closest to me, and for getting my feet wet. I got the bug to learn more and to try to go further and realized I'd need a better bike, so this year I got a better bike. My own feeling is that if you are content with light singletrack riding, these bikes will be fine. If you want to do more challenging/technical riding, then you will either pass on these, or do some learning on one and then decide what kind of riding you enjoy, and step up to the bike you want to ride. It's kinda up to you and your situation.


----------



## cwakefld (May 13, 2014)

I cringe every time I hear someone say "a $500 bike is only acceptable for bike paths". This specific thing kept me out of the sport for years. Everyone told me that I simply HAD to spend $700+ in order to even try the local singletrack. I waited until I could afford a good bike, Specialized Rockhopper. I now ride a Trek Fuel EX 8. But I have a friend who rides with me all the time on a bone stock 2003 Hardrock. That is a 12 year old very entry level bike. He hasn't burst into flames, the bike hasn't fallen apart. And he has a very good time. This is at Kickapoo State Park trails in Illinois. All directional singletrack, not totally gnarly, but definitely not a bike path. It also includes several weekend camping trips to Brown County Indiana. 

If I had it to do over again, I would have ridden the trails on a Walbike I already owned. I probably would have destroyed it. But I would have then purchased a "real" bike much sooner, and instead of starting to ride last year, I would have been riding for several years. Get a good helmet. Ride whatever you have. When you break it, push it out of the trail and buy something better. But go have fun. I believe we do a disservice to people interested in the sport by telling them not to bother unless they are willing to drop $1000


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

cwakefld said:


> I cringe every time I hear someone say "a $500 bike is only acceptable for bike paths". This specific thing kept me out of the sport for years. Everyone told me that I simply HAD to spend $700+ in order to even try the local singletrack. I waited until I could afford a good bike, Specialized Rockhopper. I now ride a Trek Fuel EX 8. But I have a friend who rides with me all the time on a bone stock 2003 Hardrock. That is a 12 year old very entry level bike. He hasn't burst into flames, the bike hasn't fallen apart. And he has a very good time. This is at Kickapoo State Park trails in Illinois. All directional singletrack, not totally gnarly, but definitely not a bike path. It also includes several weekend camping trips to Brown County Indiana.
> 
> If I had it to do over again, I would have ridden the trails on a Walbike I already owned. I probably would have destroyed it. But I would have then purchased a "real" bike much sooner, and instead of starting to ride last year, I would have been riding for several years. Get a good helmet. Ride whatever you have. When you break it, push it out of the trail and buy something better. But go have fun. I believe we do a disservice to people interested in the sport by telling them not to bother unless they are willing to drop $1000


Several have pointed out Airborne Guardian for $600 is very good. And should not blow up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

I too hate to see beginners being scared into not buying a bike they can afford. I would rather see new riders actually riding, and not having to wait years to buy a bike someone convinces them they need. I say buy a bike you can afford, just be realistic about it's limitations. For newer riders, a clean used bike is something to consider as well. As others have mentioned, a hard tail will be more affordable than a FS bike. There are thousands of clean used bikes being sold for stupid cheap, partly because their owners have been bitten by the upgrade bug, and they are so addicted to this amazing sport that they want something better. Nothing wrong with that, so use it to your advantage. Get a bike you can afford, get the most bang per buck, and ride the **** out of it! Just ride within your limits and have fun.


----------



## cardnation (Jul 2, 2014)

Shimano Deore and SRAM X5 are both perfectly serviceable gear. Take care of it and it will last. Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

Menel said:


> Several have pointed out Airborne Guardian for $600 is very good. And should not blow up.


I don't think many newbs will go for a bike they have to assemble.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

cwakefld said:


> I cringe every time I hear someone say "a $500 bike is only acceptable for bike paths". This specific thing kept me out of the sport for years. Everyone told me that I simply HAD to spend $700+ in order to even try the local singletrack. I waited until I could afford a good bike, Specialized Rockhopper. I now ride a Trek Fuel EX 8. But I have a friend who rides with me all the time on a bone stock 2003 Hardrock. That is a 12 year old very entry level bike. He hasn't burst into flames, the bike hasn't fallen apart. And he has a very good time. This is at Kickapoo State Park trails in Illinois. All directional singletrack, not totally gnarly, but definitely not a bike path. It also includes several weekend camping trips to Brown County Indiana.
> 
> If I had it to do over again, I would have ridden the trails on a Walbike I already owned. I probably would have destroyed it. But I would have then purchased a "real" bike much sooner, and instead of starting to ride last year, I would have been riding for several years. Get a good helmet. Ride whatever you have. When you break it, push it out of the trail and buy something better. But go have fun. I believe we do a disservice to people interested in the sport by telling them not to bother unless they are willing to drop $1000


^^^This is a really good post.

-F


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

It goes the other way probably more often. Guys take a bike path level bike out on a trail they've never even hiked on. It can go for miles with repeated technical rocky downhill/uphill sections. They have to cram on the brakes and get lucky to keep from going over the bars and having their hands bounced off the grips. They may end up out there for hours habiking more and more. Their bikes show up on CL with no miles and they are out of the sport for good. I admit out of those beginners there are a few adrenalin junkies who get hooked from that exact experience and will remember that day as the most fun they ever had.


----------



## cardnation (Jul 2, 2014)

eb1888 said:


> It goes the other way probably more often. Guys take a bike path level bike out on a trail they've never even hiked on. It can go for miles with repeated technical rocky downhill/uphill sections. They have to cram on the brakes and get lucky to keep from going over the bars and having their hands bounced off the grips. They may end up out there for hours habiking more and more. Their bikes show up on CL with no miles and they are out of the sport for good. I admit out of those beginners there are a few adrenalin junkies who get hooked from that exact experience and will remember that day as the most fun they ever had.


This sound a bit heavy on conjecture.

I think we can mostly agree that a beginner rider would have trouble on a technical downhill/uphill no matter how $$$ the bike.

People riding above their skill level is the problem, not the bike.

My local trails are moderately technical and every year I see plenty of new riders on $5-700 Treks/Giants...etc, for the most part doing just fine.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

Here's some perspective for you:

There aren't many trails up in your area that weren't ridden by someone on a rigid steel bike 20 years ago. My first bike was a steel Specialized Rockhopper with a steel fork that I rode all over Colorado and California on. No, I wasn't riding purposefully built downhill race trails off a chairlift but I was doing extended singletrack rides on rocky, rooty, technical singletrack. We just didn't have GoPro cameras to record every linear foot of trail back then.

Do I prefer my $4000 FS Yeti to that old Rockhopper? Of course. But the idea that you NEED a high end bike to ride typical mountain bike trails is absolutely absurd. 

Anything above the Wal-mart/Dick's/Sports Authority bike should do fine. I'd take a $700 Performance or REI bike on 95% of the trails I ride today on my Yeti. Will it be just as good? No. Will it be just as fast? No. Will it be just as fun? No. But will it work? Absolutely.

And the bikes coming from BikesDirect (Motobecane and Gravity) are excellent bikes. My brother-in-law bought a $1500 Fantom 650b full suspension with great components (Deore brakes, XT rear Mech, WTB Tires, Richey cockpit, air sprung fork) and it rides great...and he's abused it! 

Buy a bike at a bike shop (REI and Performance included) and you'll be fine at the low end.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2015)

I've been through this routine at least a dozen times with my friends who want to get into cycling. They all bought sub-$500 bikes and they all did one of two things. Either they got into cycling and spent more on the next bike (essentially writing off the beginner bike or relegating it to commuter duties, the wife/GF/kids) or they didn't get into the sport at all. A good used rigid will serve you better than a fancy cheap suspended bike. Once upon a time, we all road every trail/course/single track... on a rigid singlespeed, that's all they (or we) made. My advice is to buy a good used bike suitable to the stuff you plan on riding and see where the sport takes you. It is much more important that you're able to stop than it is that you're able to go fast, so good brakes and tires are critical. Good Luck.


----------



## ConchoBill (Jan 12, 2015)

I have a fairly new Trek Marlin 5, which IMO is a fine beginner bike. It was $500, but a $200+ Suntour Raidon fork has been installed on it. I have ridden it twice on some pretty tough trails, and the worst problems it had was its rider, and its tires. I had to replace the tube of the back tire after the first tough ride. I am 62, and was never the bravest guy around, but plunging down a trail into a creek bottom is a lot of fun if I can find the good line. I am getting the itch for a SuperFly or something like that but it will have to wait. In the meantime, I hope that I can make the Marlin go with new pedals (ordered) and maybe a new bottom bracket. It gets ridden a lot, and that is because I like it!


----------



## moxie990 (Apr 30, 2015)

Forster said:


> I've been through this routine at least a dozen times with my friends who want to get into cycling. They all bought sub-$500 bikes and they all did one of two things. Either they got into cycling and spent more on the next bike (essentially writing off the beginner bike or relegating it to commuter duties, the wife/GF/kids) or they didn't get into the sport at all. A good used rigid will serve you better than a fancy cheap suspended bike. Once upon a time, we all road every trail/course/single track... on a rigid singlespeed, that's all they (or we) made. My advice is to buy a good used bike suitable to the stuff you plan on riding and see where the sport takes you. It is much more important that you're able to stop than it is that you're able to go fast, so good brakes and tires are critical. Good Luck.


You know what's funny is that's pretty much exactly what I want. Something good enough that I won't hurt myself but not so good I go broke buying a bike that's way more than I need. I know it might be a weird comparison but this is a lot like skiing to me in that sense. I've been skiing since I was little, have spent thousands upon thousand on gear throughout the years, but if someone came to me asking which skis to buy to start out on, I'd direct them to all the low end stuff or used gear, as long as they're not the straight skis from 15/20 years ago, they'll be good enough to learn on and then you'll grow from there. Yes the more expensive stuff is better, but I couldn't ever suggest that type of gear to someone whose new to the sport because I don't know what type of skier they're going to turn out to be (powder junky? Bumps and trees? or resort bound groomers? All day in the park or never going to see a jump at all? etc.).

I guess I should have expected the same out of bikes, but that goes back to my original question on if those $500 bikes are going to get me hurt or are they at least good enough to give me a taste for the sport and get me to the point of knowing the specifics of what I want next.

Seems like the fairly unanimous answer is that yes, they're good enough for that, but won't get me much more than that. And I'm very comfortable with that as a starting off point too! Now, I just need to make a freakin decision on which one to buy!!!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Sounds like you've got it figured out. You're right on with the parallels to ski gear. 
Get enough to get out there and figure it out. Just go out and ride for the experience; the more saddle time you get and the more stuff you check out, the better idea you'll have of how you want to approach the sport and how best to spend your $$.


----------



## jgdblue (Apr 24, 2015)

I don't know about a $500 bike, but I paid 699 for a new 2015 Specialized Rockhopper Sport and I've been having a blast riding the hell out of it for the last few weeks. I'm sure the day will come when I'm ready for something higher end, but it's all I need right now. It's allowing me to learn how to ride, and I'll actually appreciate a better bike when I get one rather than starting on one right away.


----------



## mca90guitar (Apr 2, 2015)

I decided to start cheap and will probably upgrade next summer once i figure out what I want.

But I went with a giant talon 4 and honestly it was been a pretty great bike so far. has handled everything that has come about great. That being said im not doing huge drops and jumps. Just 2-3 ft max right now, lots of rooty trails and rock trails etc.. and its handling them pretty good. Should be better once my new tires arrive.

way I see it is this bike didnt cost alot and it wont hurt as much replacing broken parts on it while im learning to ride better. Later on ill grab a more expensive nicer bike (most likely a FS also) and have a solid back up bike as well and a loaner if any of my lazy friends decide they want to leave the couch for a day lol.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

From looking at the specs for $7-800 Treks and Specializeds it appears they're in the ballpark as the $4-500 secondary brands. 

Which makes plenty of sense since they're the two big bike makers and are able to charge a little extra for the name alone.

Most posters, newb or experienced, seem to be OK with that level of Trek/Socialized FWTW.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

gr7070 said:


> From looking at the specs for $7-800 Treks and Specializeds it appears they're in the ballpark as the $4-500 secondary brands.


Do you have an example or two?


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

jeffj said:


> Do you have an example or two?


Any of the lower-priced bikes mentioned in this thread, for starters.

Shoot, the GT Backwoods Sport and Comp aren't that different than the Trek X-Caliber 6 and 7.

The XCM and XCT are similar forks.
The rear derailleur on the GTs is a few steps above the Treks rest, but the Trek front are a step up.

And that's just the GT Backwoods, far from the greatest of these low end bikes that have been mentioned. The Karakorum even better. The Airborne, Gravity, and on.

FWIW I only bothered with looking at a few of the components, like the derailleurs and forks. 
But they're in the *ballpark*.

Now let arguing the minutia begin. ; )


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Bikes need a Public Enemy. I haven't kept those skis, but they were fun and playful, with a mellow enough flex to come back from snowboarding on. My new bike is a bit more like my Volkl Mantras. Tons of fun, but I had to be ready for it.

So for a while, spending more makes everything better. At a certain point, the different classes of bike differentiate, and that stops being true if you bought the wrong class.

When I came back to MTB in 2007, I bought a Specialized Hardrock for $600. In retrospect, buying something at retail was dumb, but I was in a hurry.

Suppose I took that budget today and doubled it. I could get a Rockhopper. Still a hardtail, and while I can get the Evo model, it's still basically a XC bike. I have my doubts about the fork that comes on it, but everything else would be better. In other words, it would climb better AND descend better than a $600 Hardrock without making sacrifices for one or the other and without any aspects that could make it harder to approach. Kind of like moving from the Rossi Bandit B2s I had for a little while to the PEs. 

What if we double the budget again?

There are a ton of bikes I could have for $2400. Fat bikes, the least expensive DH bikes, some racier XC bikes, the first couple FS trail bikes... In other words, for this figure, there's some real differentiation. Honestly, I think pretty much every higher-end bike descends better than a typical $1200 hardtail, but some of the bikes start to be a little bit of a handful at low speed and the DH bikes aren't exactly meant for climbing. So I'd say that someone at this pricepoint should have a better idea what he actually wants. Kind of like moving on to $600+ flat skis - they're designed for something in particular.

I think starting out on a secondhand bike is a great piece of advice. I started kicking myself even more for my Hardrock when I started telling friends that, they did it, and they immediately had something a lot nicer for the same as what I spent. I do still have my Hardrock, and it has its original seatpost. And I don't regret getting back into riding, which I needed a bike to do.

I don't think you're describing a job for three bikes in your OP. I think you're describing a job for two. An XC or Trail bike would be fine for both the MUP stuff and for riding actual trails. I still think you need to rent something if you go to the resorts, though.


----------



## bigflamingtaco (Oct 26, 2013)

I've been around a lot of the mentioned bikes, and the $500 GT's and Fuji's are not as high in quality as the $500 Treks/Cannondales/Specializeds. The deraillers and cables have too much play. They are a painful build. Takes as long to setup as $300 Treks.

I'd avoid the $500 bikes from... anyone. You can always upgrade components, but upgrading from a heavy straight guage tubing frame costs a lot more. Between the frame and the better component groups you get, I'll continue to suggest a used $800 bike for $500 over buying a $500 bike.

Today's entry level trail bikes aren't bad at all as long as you understand that bikes below about $800 aren't meant for riding XC trails. City park trails, where old people can ride their three-speeds alongside young moms and dads pushing baby strollers is where those bikes don't fear to tread. MUPS that have been cleared of every last root and rock, paved jogging paths, and sidewalks are all fine places for bikes with chrome plated 26mm stanchions and deraillers with more wiggle than cats ready to pounce.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

That better be sarcasm.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

gr7070 said:


> Any of the lower-priced bikes mentioned in this thread, for starters.
> 
> Shoot, the GT Backwoods Sport and Comp aren't that different than the Trek X-Caliber 6 and 7.
> 
> ...


The devil is, quite often, in the details.

You mention the forks being similar between the XCT (which comes on both GT's) and XCM (which comes on the X-Cal 6), and that is true to some extent. However, the XCT has 28mm stanchions, and the XCM has 30mm stanchions. The X-Cal comes with a Rock Shox XC 30.

All of those Suntour forks are more than a pound heavier than the RS fork on the X-Cal 7.

Airborne is a mail order bike, and there is usually a shipping charge added to the price ($75 ? IIRC). They do offer good value if you don't need a dealer's support, and they do need at least some final assembly. That said, you can't get the Seeker at all (sold out), and it could be a while until they are back in stock.

The GT Backwoods are also mail order bikes (at the prices you quoted), and those are sale prices. The regular price on the Backwoods Comp is $799. And they charge $49 shipping, and you would be responsible for the final assembly, and any other work after that.

The Backwoods Sport comes with Tektro mechanical brakes, and the Comp comes with Promax hydros. The Trek X-Cals come with Shimano hydros.

The GT's come with Sunrace cassettes, and the Trek X-Cal's come with Shimano or SRAM cassettes. Without getting into too much gory details, I'll just say that I much prefer Shimano or SRAM cassettes.

The Backwoods Sport is 8 speed. The X-Cal 6 & 7 are both 9 speed, as is the Backwoods Comp.

The Alivio (M430) is 'one' step up from the Acera (M390) derailleur.

I have nothing against GT. I own two of them myself, one of which is a Backwoods, albeit an older one. I would, in most cases, prefer the G2 geometry. For a beginner, that may not be that big on an issue. The internal derailleur cable routing is a nice touch on the Treks as well, and certainly isn't a necessity, but it could certainly be said there is some added value in that.

You seem to dismiss the differences, but all of those differences are what separate one 'level' of bike from another. A Marlin 6 ($609 MSRP) would be a better comparison to the GT Backwoods Sport (MSRP $549). They both come with 8 speed drivetrains and Suntour XCT forks. The GT has an Acera vs the Altus on the Trek, but the Trek has hydraulic brakes vs. mechanical on the GT. I think the frames on the GT's are also more comparable to the Marlin than they are to the X-Cal. And, the frames on the Gravity bikes are another step below that.

Depending on what sale price you can find on either bike, you could find some price differential between the two that could favor the GT. But that (again) depends on whether or not the pros and cons of a mail order bike is something that favors your particular situation.

PerformanceBike.com - Bicycle Parts, Cycling Gear and Accessories

PerformanceBike.com - Bicycle Parts, Cycling Gear and Accessories

X-Caliber 6 - Trek Bicycle

X-Caliber 7 - Trek Bicycle

Marlin 6 - Trek Bicycle

Bottom line is that you may be able to find some good values in the second tier brands, and for sure you can find some third tier brands that will have prices on really . . . . . cheap . . . . . bikes that the larger top tier brands will not even choose to compete with. But, I would also suggest that the differences in actual costs are not as great as some make them out to be (depending on each unique individual's own situations). They all have their place in the cycling world, and could likely serve a great purpose for a given rider in a given situation. The trick is finding the one that best suits your situation. And I would suggest keeping your mind open enough to realize that individual situations vary widely, so what may be a great purchase for one person, may not be that great for another.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

Lots of mixed opinions here, but like someone up there said:
The problem is people riding above their skill level on bikes below the quality required for that type of riding. 

Real beginners don't need $1000+ bikes. By real beginners i mean REAL BEGINNERS, people who barely know how to shift properly. Those guys won't be doing anything hard, so their $700- bikes will do just fine.
But if you can afford it...

P.D. Bigflamingtaco. I'm sorry but your comment is false. $500 bikes can do a sh*t load more than just riding along dads pushing baby strollers. But i agree, if the frame is not worth upgrading, never buy it.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I've been looking at entry level bikes and find Trek's X-Cal 8 ($1100) to be the cheapest bike with a decent fork (XC32 coil, not offbrand ones or flexier ones like XC30), decent brakes (Deore M355, not Tektro or offbrand ones), true *tubeless* ready rims, and not lacking anywhere else on the spec (2x10 is nice). Not even a heavily discounted Niner Air 9 had true tubeless ready rims. I'm having trouble finding a better value out there. If it had a clutch RD, it would be the epitome of trickle-down technology.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

With the price of an X-Cal 6 (slighty less) Breezer Bikes - Storm Comp 29 - Bike Overview

To me, this is the best deal you can get at $770

Acera/Deore/Alivio drivetrain, the same XCM from the X Cal 6 but with remote lockout. 
Legendary handling, 29 wheels, 9 speed shimano cassette.
The only thing i wouldn't recommend for heavy riders is the rims. But if you are under 180 pounds this is just enough.
Also, the Vera EOS tires are quite slippery on actual mountain stuff. Fine for commuting.

The bike is a little bit heavier than the X Cal 6 too.
But honestly, can you get a drivetrain like this without going lower than an XCM for 770?
I think not.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

Of course there are better bikes. But not for $770. At least here in Honduras, there aren't.
I'm looking forward to get one.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
You've had more recent trouble with Bicycle Shaped Objects than any of us. I think there are some pretty broad swaths of No Man's Land at the lower pricepoints, where you still don't get "buy on purpose" or "keep for the life of the bike" components, but you have less money.

I don't have saddle time on the nicer, named Suntour forks. So maybe they're different. But I do have saddle time off-road on rigid bikes. There are some really good performance aspects of rigid forks that I think people don't realize until they've been on a few, and on a few bad suspension forks. Rigid forks are really light. Even cheaper ones. Rigid forks have great torsional rigidity. Even cheaper ones. Rigid forks don't kick or pogo.

As far as I'm concerned, suspension forks aren't an upgrade until they're stiff enough to track well, have a "me" spring rate, and have functional rebound damping. I think that should be adjustable too, certainly if I'm going to pay money for one. But I'm currently running a fork into the ground on my 'B' bike that hasn't had a rebound knob in years.

So for rock-bottom pricing, I think an early- to mid-90s name-brand bike is one of the good-value options. Something with no crappy off-brand suspension fork, no name-brand fork with tons of flex and degrading elastomers. And with V-brakes and at least a 8-speed cassette.

For a bit more, I think something mid-2000s or newer with name-brand disc brakes, at least a 8-speed drivetrain, and with a name-brand, popular air or coil fork. Skip everything in between.

That makes a lot of new bikes below $1200 or so look like bad choices.

If it makes anyone feel better, I bought my car used. 

Suspension forks seem to sell bikes. So suspension forks that are worse than riding rigid bikes are something consumers have demanded and continue to support. Not much we can really do about it, given the number of people buying those bikes with no background. But at least more savvy buyers can make a different choice.


----------



## moxie990 (Apr 30, 2015)

I appreciate all the comments so far! Everyone here has helped me in my research way more than you know! As I've been going through the research and testing phase, I think I'm actually leaning more toward a 27.5 bike rather than 29er at this point as I just feel a bit more natural and comfortable on the 27.5s (I haven't ridden as many yet though, so some more test rides are still to come!). 
Even before I posted here I was spending time on craigslist and pink bike looking for something in my area that fits what I want / need, but everything is either out of my price range or just doesn't look like it's been taken care of at all. I'll keep checking, of course, but in the meantime, I wanted to know which one out of the following was the "better" bike. I know, I know, it comes down to fit and all that, but strictly based on components alone, which is better? They seem really similar to me with each having a few "wins". (notably, the 30mm stanchions on the Axis' forks vs 28mm on the Gravity and the Deore RD on the Gravity vs Altus on the Axis ... now, how important are those and which one is more important than the other? I need input there!)

Save up to 60% off new 650b and 27.5 Mountain Bikes - MTB - Gravity 29 SS Single Speed new 650b and 27.5 Mountain Bikes

Diamondback Axis Sport 27.5" Mountain Bike - 2015

Geo charts for both are on each respective website but you have to click a link to get to it.

FWIW - I wouldn't have to pay tax on the Gravity but would have to pay for final assembly / tuning (I consider myself very mechanically inclined, but with this being my "first" bike, I want to be sure it's done correctly!). With the Axis, I'd have to pay sales tax, but they do the assembly free and offer lifetime tune ups! If they're similar enough, that might be enough to push me in that direction ... I'd say one of the most common themes on this board seems to be creating a relationship with your lbs and there happens to be a Performance store just a couple miles from me! A nice bonus, but also not the only reason I'd buy a bike of course!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm no expert on modern entry level components, but if most else is equal, I'd lean towards purchasing locally. 

Noticed that the description of the DB says 3x10, but the specs say 3x8 though...not that 8 speed isn't fine, but figured I'd mention it.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

jeffj said:


> The devil is, quite often, in the details.
> 
> You mention the forks being similar between the XCT (which comes on both GT's) and XCM (which comes on the X-Cal 6), and that is true to some extent. However, the XCT has 28mm stanchions, and the XCM has 30mm stanchions.
> 
> ...


I do not take exception with your post, but there's a couple things worth pointing out that put the GT Sport in a smaller ballpark with the Trek XC6.

The GT is not mail order. At least not in my local store - lots in stock. And while the $400 and $500 are "sale" prices they appear to be on sale *every day* - I've never seen any other price in the store or online. The same cannot be said for the Treks, which I often see at MSRP.

While the Trek XC6 has 9 gears its the second lowest SRAM and the 8 gear GT is the third lowest Shimano. Pretty similar, and I'd even give the nod to the GT - give me the slight quality upgrade over upgrade the slight one gear. The same with the shifters.

There's a few things better on the GT Sport than the XC6 and vice versa. I think its a fair statement to say they're in the same ballpark. For a bike that costs 50% more that's a much more expensive ticket to see the same ballgame. While I have no trouble stating the Trek is a nicer bike it's not that much nicer.

And I own an $800 commuter Trek that I love and I was awfully, awfully close to buying an XC 6 or 8 (hadn't quite decided on grade), fwtw.

If one sticks with the sport I suspect owners of both will upgrade (purchase) both bikes someday and they'll lose out on a nice chunk less with the functional GT.

I'm curious, what's the "G2 geometry"? I found the GT to fit much more closely to the Trek than I did the Specializeds I road.

Excellent thread.


----------



## bigflamingtaco (Oct 26, 2013)

Deartist7 said:


> P.D. Bigflamingtaco. I'm sorry but your comment is false. $500 bikes can do a sh*t load more than just riding along dads pushing baby strollers. But i agree, if the frame is not worth upgrading, never buy it.


You declare my statement to be false, but provide no information to the contrary. You put no effort into your post, yet felt mine deserved neg rep? Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!

Here's my statement again, with emphasis on the part that you appear to have missed:

$500 bikes are not *intended* for use on XC trails.

Now, I'll expand: Sure, you can ride a $500 bike on an XC trail. Our scout troop hits the trails several times a year, and those boys run whatever they bring, including ten year old Wally World rustbuckets. We let them do intermediate XC trails, and black diamond when the trail does not present a serious injury threat. It's ok because they do it once or twice a year.

Anecdotal evidence: There is a Trek store across the street from the Giant dealer I occasionally work at, and they sell a lot of $500 Treks. We service a lot of these $500 Treks when their warranty runs out. We also sell a lot of bikes to Trek owners when their $500 Trek has "Failed me for the last time!".

When someone ask if a $500 bike is ok for XC trails, the only answer is no. This includes "beginners". If someone thinks they might like riding XC trails, they should borrow a bike, rent a bike, or go at it on a used bike that was *intended* for the features of XC trails. The bike will be able to handle the trail, will be able to keep up with improving skill, will provide a more enjoyable ride, and will have a lot less downtime.

If you want to give someone the chance to see how good mountain biking can be, and want them to do it safely, that is what you say. Not much will drive a beginner away from mountain biking than having to purchase a second bike within the first two years, except maybe bad injuries resulting from under engineered components.

My 95 SHO topped out at 142 mph the last time I tracked it. Wouldn't even consider approaching 40mph less than that on public highways because they aren't smooth enough to leave the margin of error required to maintain control. Just because one CAN, doesn't mean one SHOULD.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

bigflamingtaco said:


> You declare my statement to be false, but provide no information to the contrary. You put no effort into your post, yet felt mine deserved neg rep? Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!
> 
> Here's my statement again, with emphasis on the part that you appear to have missed:
> 
> ...


Someone better let Trek & Specialized (for starters) know that their $500 MTB's are not intended for use on XC trails:

Specialized Bicycle Components

Marlin - Trek Bicycle

"bad injuries resulting from under-engineered components"

Come on now, Killer. . . . . On XC trails?

Either one of the above $500 bikes is better than the bike I cut my MTB teeth on 20 years ago. I do feel that a better bike would put off the day when a rider feels they have developed more skill than their bike can handle. But, I also think that those bikes could actually handle more, if those riders had even more skill. While a $500 MTB is not as fun to ride (or as capable) as a (good quality and properly setup) more expensive bike, it is far from "not intended for use on XC trails."

For many riders, the $500 entry level hardtail serves a valuable purpose. I feel they are absolutely trail worthy on XC trails, and for novice riders looking to see whether or not mountain biking is really for them, it gets them out on the trails where they can decide for themselves at a price that won't hurt terribly if they decide they don't like it. It also lets them figure out what type of riding they truly prefer so that when the time does come to upgrade, they will have a far better idea what niche to explore when looking for a nicer bike after a year or two of riding.

Reminds me of back when the first Honda dual sport 600's came out in 1983. I bought one, and had an absolute blast riding it all over creation. I went riding with my older brother at a local OHV riding area, and we were riding a rough fire road along a broad ridge line, and I look over and see my brother on his CR 480 out in the weeds but tooling right along beside me at about 50 mph. He looks over and starts blipping the throttle as though to say "come on, let's go", and finally goes WOT and just pulls away, still out in the weeds along side the trail.

We stop for a minute at the end of the trail, and I immediately start telling him about the dual sport tires and relative lack of suspension compared to his CR 480, and he suggests we trade bikes and ride it again. Up to the ridge line we go and I am screaming along on his CR 480, and look over to see him once again out in the weeds, on my supposedly inferior bike with dual sport tires and less suspension, alongside the trail, blipping the throttle before once again roosting away. . . . I learned a lot about going fast by following that guy around. It's about the indian, not the arrow.

I see a fair amount of damage from novice (and also experienced) riders that run out of talent or fail to properly maintain their bike, but don't recall anyone actually being injured from riding XC trails on an entry level hardtail with the failure of an under-engineered component causing the crash. Not saying components never fail, but I don't see more component failures on entry level bikes any more often than I do on higher end bikes.

Example: I see some novice riders that break chains, and they think it's because the strength of their massive charging rhino haunches is superior to the strength of the chain on their new entry level bike. In reality, it's because they have crappy shifting technique.

If more budget is available, it's nice for beginners to get a better bike, but it's not imperative.


----------



## gr7070 (Apr 21, 2015)

bigflamingtaco said:


> Our scout troop hits the trails several times a year, and those boys run whatever they bring, including ten year old Wally World rustbuckets. We let them do intermediate XC trails, and black diamond when the trail does not present a serious injury threat. It's ok because they do it once or twice a year.*
> ...
> 
> ...except maybe bad injuries resulting from under engineered components.


You believe so strongly in your statement that $500 bikes aren't fit for XC trail use but you allow children to ride ten year old $150 rust buckets down intermediate and advanced trails multiple times a year, year after year?

Sounds like the $500 bikes can handle the trails just fine if it's safe for the children on inferior bikes.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

A big problem I see with these threads is that people throw around strong words like "need" and "can." I can ride a road bike on a lot of mountain bike trails. Does that mean I don't need a mountain bike? Actually I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that I don't need a mountain bike, let alone a competition-level mountain bike, to ride trails. I have a little trouble calling that "mountain biking" just because the phrase implies a mountain bike to me.

For me, this is really about three things. What I want the experience of riding trails to be like, what I want the experience of owning my bike to be like, and what I think will give me the best value for my money. I'm also comfortable placing some value on the intangibles I get buying through a shop and on starting at the very beginning of a bike's service life.

So for me, it's not about whether or not an entry level bike can handle trail riding. More expensive bikes are high-maintenance too if I ride high volume or through the winter, and actual catastrophic failures are very rare on bikes legally sold in the US.

My real bars are whether I'll have more fun and less downtime on a certain bike than on something I can get secondhand for the same money.

At, say, $100, I think secondhand wins hands-down. At some point, I think what I give up paying for a retail bike is fairly intangible, like having lower-status component groups that function equally well, so maybe the intangibles I get from buying from a shop are worth more. Being able to choose which bike, exactly, and what size, exactly are worth a lot to me especially given that I'm spending enough to get a nice bike at retail now. Not putting in time and irritation messing around with Craig's List is worth something to me too.

For around $350 in my region, I can get a nice early-90s bike with a rigid fork, V-brakes, and 8-speed cassette. I think that's actually a really capable bike, and that's the bike I think a new bike should outperform before it becomes worth taking seriously or paying money for. And yes, I totally blew it when I got back into MTB; oh well.


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

AndrwSwitch said:


> A big problem I see with these threads is that people throw around strong words like "need" and "can." I can ride a road bike on a lot of mountain bike trails. Does that mean I don't need a mountain bike? Actually I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that I don't need a mountain bike, let alone a competition-level mountain bike, to ride trails. I have a little trouble calling that "mountain biking" just because the phrase implies a mountain bike to me.
> 
> For me, this is really about three things. What I want the experience of riding trails to be like, what I want the experience of owning my bike to be like, and what I think will give me the best value for my money. I'm also comfortable placing some value on the intangibles I get buying through a shop and on starting at the very beginning of a bike's service life.
> 
> ...


This.


----------

