# 2012 Motobecane 600HT...thoughts for $360



## Mountain916 (Apr 9, 2012)

This bike would be for my wife. Lights trails for the most part. $360 seems like a great deal for this bike. Thoughts?

Mountain Bikes - MTB - Motobecane 600HT

Frame Custom 7005 Aluminum Trail-Tuned POWER STAY frame, box section chainstays, bi-axial gussetted downtube, sculpted rear dropouts with replaceable rear derailleur hanger, 2x H2O bosses, International Standard rear disc mounts Detailed Picture Gallery 
Fork RockShox Dart + Advanced, long travel, Adjustable Preload 
Crankset TruVativ 5D Aluminum arms 175mm, Triple Rings 22/32/42T 
Bottom Bracket Sealed Cartridge 
Pedals ATB Beartrap 
Front Derailleur Shimano Alivio Top Swing 
Rear Derailleur Shimano Deore LX long cage 
Shifters Shimano Alivio Mega 8 Speed STI Rapidfire Pods (24 speeds total) 
Cassette/Freewheel 12-28T 8 Speed PowerglideRamps 
Chain 8 Speed Z72 Narrow 
Hubs Formula DiscSpecific Aluminum (black) Sealed Bearing mechanism 
Spokes Stainless Steel 
Rims WTB SpeedDisc Rims Double Wall Aluminum 
Tires WTB Velociraptor Blackwall 26 x 2.10 (front and rear specific) 
Brakes TEKTRO IO Mechanical Disc Brakes with Multi Pad Angle adjustments 
Brake Levers Tektro for Disc 
Headset Cane Creek Internal Sealed caged ball bearing VP A42E 1.125 inch 
Handlebar Skye Comp Aluminum Riser 
Stem Skye Comp Threadless Aluminum 1.125 inch 
Tape/Grip WTB Dual Compound Palm Pillow 
Saddle WTB Speed V with comfort groove 
Seat Post Skye Aluminum Micro-Adjust 
Seat Clamp Alloy w/QR 
Sizes 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 inch 
Colors MatteBlack


----------



## BMW M 2 ISF (Apr 12, 2012)

Hey there,

I am a noob so My post may not have much weight, but from reading the specs, and seeing it is on sale, I would say that it would be way better than any DEPT. store bike.

I just bought 2 from BD as well and they should be here this Tuesday. i will post comments and pix when i get them.

I say go for it!

Here is your bike your speaking of


----------



## trouble (Mar 16, 2004)

+1 Go for it

I don't think you can find another bike of this quality with those components for anywhere near that price. 

I was on a very limited budget and picked up the 500HT at that same price a few wks ago. Wish I would have waited for this sale. I'm happy with the 500 though. At the time, the 500HT was the best deal I could find new or used.


----------



## Mountain916 (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm just hesitant...my wife is 5'7''. Would the 17 inch frame with 26 inch wheels work for her for the most part? It says for people from 5'5'' to 5'8''. The stand over height is 29 inches and my wifes inseam was about 32. I'm thinking she would need bigger, but i'm a noob.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

The 17" should work just fine. And yes, I agree that the 600HT is the best deal she will get at that price range. If you are concerned about sizing and the Moto is too small, you could pick up an 18" Nashbar or Sette frame for under $100, swap the parts, and sell the 600HT frame:

Sette Reken Alloy Hardtail Frame at Price Point

Nashbar Double-butted Aluminum Mountain Bike Frame - Mountain Bike Frames

Also, I'm 5'7 and did order a 17" Windsor Cliff 4500 about a year ago. At first, it felt a little small, but after a few rides, it felt a lot better. I also just ordered a 17" Motobecane 600HT, knowing that the fit would be simlar, except the 600HT is going to fit a little differently, because of the longer travel of the forks.

In short, I think you will be ok with the 17", but I would order soon, because they aren't going to last long!


----------



## wootenator (Apr 1, 2012)

I just ordered this bike this morning. I had the 500ht booked marked too order
but now ive got the money the size i need was sold out. So i am very happy
the 600ht went on sale for the same price. As far as the bike goes from looking 
at the specs and componets i think its alot of bike for the price. I cant wait.


----------



## w98seeng (Jun 13, 2008)

LX RD, Tektro discs and levers, RockShox Dart 2, TruVativ crank, free shipping, no tax. This is a heck of a deal for $360.

Ian


----------



## Mountain916 (Apr 9, 2012)

damn man...I was busy all day and just got back now to order and its gone for the 17 inch. Oh well. I'm a noob so was a slighty doubtful and hesitated.


----------



## inteq9 (Dec 3, 2007)

Bahahahah


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Bummer, but you can get a pretty good Nashbar mountain bike for $399.00, as shown below:

Nashbar AT-3 Mountain Bike - Mountain Bikes

The specs are pretty close to the 600HT...really, not that much different. In some cases, you are getting a better known brand like a Shimano bottom bracket and a Ritchey headset. Also notice that it has 120mm of travel, which indicates it will be on the larger size for a 17":

*Nashbar AT-3 Mountain Bike*

FRAME: TIG-welded 6061 aluminum, disc mount and replaceable derailleur hanger 
FORK: Suntour suspension fork with 120mm travel, 1 1/8" threadless steerer, preload adjust and hydraulic speed lock-out 
REAR SHOCK: NA 
HEADSET: Ritchey 1 1/8" threadless 
CRANKSET: FSA Dynadrive 44X32X22T 
BOTTOM BRACKET: Shimano BB-UN26, sealed cartridge, square type 
SHIFTERS: Shimano Alivio 
LEVERS: Tektro 2-finger 
HANDLEBAR: Alloy 15mm rise 
STEM: Alloy 3D Forged, 17 degree rise 
FRONT DERAILLEUR: Shimano Alivio 
REAR DERAILLEUR: Shimano Deore 
CASSETTE: CS-HG30-9 9-Speed, 11-34T 
BRAKES: Tektro Novela mechanical disc 
WHEELSET: Rims: Alex TD-24 32-hole Doublewall Alloy; Hubs: Alloy Disc 
TIRES: Maxxis Mobster, 26x2.35 front, 26x2.1 rear 
PEDALS: Aluminum body, steel cage 
SEATPOST: Alloy, 27.2mm 
SADDLE: WTB Pure V-Sport 
CHAIN: KMC HG53 
GRIPS/TAPE: Velo


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

By the way, the Windsor Cliff 4700 is not bad for $399. However, I think the Nashbar bike gets the nod over the Windsor, but the Nashbar bike does not have free shipping. Having said that, I think it would be worth the extra money to pay for shipping for the Nashbar bike instead of the Windsor, because really, its pretty darn close to the 600HT.

Anyway, here is the link to the Windsor so that you have another option to compare the Nashbar bike to:

Save up to 60% off new Mountain Bikes - MTB - Windsor Cliff4700


----------



## Mountain916 (Apr 9, 2012)

Getagrip,

Appreciate the help. I'll look into the Windsor and Nashbar. The nashbar charges tax and shipping so its about 70 bucks more. 

I may also jump up to the Airborne Guardian which seems pretty decent.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

If that works, go for it, but take a close look at the geometry of each bike, which Nashbar unfortunately doesn't have listed on their site, but I think you would be ok. I noticed that the Guardian is a 29er, and if that is the case, an 18" may be too big, because 29er sizing is quite different. Some people who switch to a 29er switch back to a 26er, as can be seen in this thread:

http://forums.mtbr.com/beginners-corner/returned-my-29er-26er-778064.html

Here is another one to consider that comes in a 17": the Schwinn Rocket Comp. Please note that the eBay listing is off on sizing, but its a nice bike - I have one! It does have kind of a high chasis because of the 5" travel in the fork, which might freak your wife out a little because its a long drop if you fall.

Schwinn best full suspension red mountain bike sale | eBay


----------



## FireLikeIYA (Mar 15, 2009)

Mountain916 said:


> damn man...I was busy all day and just got back now to order and its gone for the 17 inch. Oh well. I'm a noob so was a slighty doubtful and hesitated.


I have a feeling that bike weighs around 33lb and the rear cassette is tiny (11-28t, seriously??). A 28t gear is way too small and would be torture on anything but bike paths. I would recommend finding a bike with a 32t or higher. The Nashbar bike that has been linked in another reply has a 11-34t rear cassette and a 9 speed drivetrain which would be much easier to ride.

EDIT: Since the motobecane is roughly $100 less than the Nashbar bike after shipping is taken into account you could save some $ by doing one these,

Option #1: change the rear cassette with a larger 8speed like this in either 11-32t or 11-34t for around $13-15.

Option #2: you could convert it to a 9 speed with this this and this for roughly $65.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

FireLikeIYA said:


> I have a feeling that bike weighs around 33lb and the rear cassette is tiny (11-28t, seriously??). A 28t gear is way too small and would be torture on anything but bike paths. I would recommend finding a bike with a 32t or higher. The Nashbar bike that has been linked in another reply has a 11-34t rear cassette and a 9 speed drivetrain which would be much easier to ride.


Yeah, it probably will be a little tougher to ride up hills, but a lot of that depends on where you live and what kind of terrrain you ride. A 28t in back forces you to ride in a higher gear and get stronger. My Schwinn FS has a rather stubburn front derailleur which makes it really a pain in the you know what to downshift shift from the 32t to the 22t. The result was that I stayed in the 32t because I was more or less forced to, but now I'm strong enough to stay in it on most rides I do. Of course, it wouldn't work so great on other courses...but don't forget, you can always buy a new cassette with lower gear ratios.

That being said, I think the Nashbar is a great bike, so if the 600HT is sold out in your size, paying an extra $70 or so for the Nashbar is worth it.

The shipping weight of the 600HT is listed at 30 pounds. In my experience, Bikes Direct bikes tend to be lighter than similar bike store bikes. And by the way, as of this morning, the 17" is still available...when I go to the site and do a test to add it to my cart, I have no problems.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The spec on that bike isn't "all that." If your wife doesn't already know her fit numbers, and from the height/inseam post I'm guessing she doesn't, you're both better off if you can find something locally for your price.

Call your local bike shops and see if anyone carries used or consignment bikes. Play It Again Sports and pawn shops can be another place to see several used bikes all at once, which is the goal here. Then your wife can ride a few different bikes and make a much more informed decision.

Women sometimes articulate their backs from a little higher than men - really depends on how high her waist is. Women with shorter backs and higher waists are likely to want a frame with a shorter reach.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> The spec on that bike isn't "all that."


For the price it is. Compare specs to a Trek 4300 at $789 with ACERA components:

Trek Bicycle

That said, Specialized seems to offer better deals on woman's specific bikes than Trek, but you pay a lot more for less bike. The Specialized Hardrock Disc sport goes for $630:

Specialized Bicycle Components : Myka Sport Disc


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Forgot to mention the Giant Women's Revel 1 - probably the best specs you will find locally on a women's specific bike selling for $500 or less:

Revel 1 W (2012) - Bikes | Giant Bicycles | United States


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Acera components work fine. I started my first racing season with them. Rode the Acera (or Alivio? can't remember which is which) crank until I wore out the middle ring. Rear derailleur until I fell on it. The only part that really didn't work very well for me was the front derailleur, and it's the same on the Moto. So, meh.

I don't really want to argue about whether BD's bikes are any good. They do seem to hang better parts on them than major-brand bikes at the same price, although not as good as those at the price they claim as the MSRP. But for me, the big value of my bike is that I can ride it for many hours without it hurting me, and that's all about fit. It's worth riding a few bikes, and important to note that the nominal sizes don't compare across brands well. Incidentally, I'd need to size up once relative to most bike with traditional XC geometry to get the right top tube length in a 600HT. Annoying.

I've bought my last three bikes used. Private sellers, so I had to have a good idea going in that they'd fit me, but for the two I cared about, I did, and they do. So, about the same on the fit issue as BD but I've done better on the spec for price. A track bike with the right geometry isn't even available from BD for less than $800, more than three times what I spent. It costs more to buy used at a used bike shop, but I think the opportunity to ride several bikes back-to-back is a real value-added for someone who doesn't already know her fit numbers/head tube angle/whatever else.

I think the OP's going to have better luck getting his wife to ride with him if she has a sense of ownership over the bike. Even if it's used, buying locally gives her a chance to get a bike that really is for her. My fiancee's happier to ride her hybrid than one of my racing bikes, even if it's set up for her. Go figure.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Acera components work fine. I started my first racing season with them. Rode the Acera (or Alivio? can't remember which is which) crank until I wore out the middle ring.
> 
> I don't really want to argue about whether BD's bikes are any good. They do seem to hang better parts on them than major-brand bikes at the same price, although not as good as those at the price they claim as the MSRP. Incidentally, I'd need to size up once relative to most bike with traditional XC geometry to get the right top tube length in a 600HT. Annoying.
> 
> ...


My guess is that you were racing with Alivio. Acera components used to come stock on Trek 820s...now they've downgraded to Tourney.

Yeah, you can sometimes find better value on used bikes than Bikes Direct bikes, but a lot of that depends on the area of the country in which you live, and usually, its not that easy. For instance, compare my local Craigslist (Omaha) with Seattle Washington's Craigslist. Seattle's selection and prices on bikes is TEN TIMES BETTER:

omaha / council bluffs bicycles - all classifieds - craigslist

seattle-tacoma bicycles - all classifieds - craigslist

Yes, Bikes Direct top tubes seem to be a little shorter than some other manufactures like Specialized, but they are consistent with many of Trek's models. However, if you do end up getting a frame that does not fit right, it is not too hard to swap everything over to another frame, which can be done for about $100, and that's not taking into consideration that you can probably sell your Motobecane frame for $75 to $100, which you can use to purchase the tools needed for this and future bike repairs. I agree though, that their MSRPs are inflated, but let's face it, their components aren't only equal to bike store bikes at equal prices, they are flat out SUPERIOR.

Anyway...if the OP is still reading this, I hope he gets the bike that will work best for his wife. For the rest of you still reading this, don't be afraid to purchase from Bikes Direct. Outside of a few isolated instances (which you can read about in this forum), for the most part, their customers seem VERY happy with their bikes!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Here's a good one.  Don't tell your wife where you saw it, if you buy it.

Cannondale Lefty hardtail, XTR, XT
BikePedia - 2006 Cannondale F800 Complete Bicycle

When I moved and started racing, I had this.
Specialized Bicycle Components : Hardrock Comp Disc

I'd already put "my" cockpit setup on it - so flat bars, bar ends, a racier saddle and the stem to tie it all together, and a fork I found on EBay for $75. Drivetrain's a mix of 300- and 400-level stuff, so pretty typical. I guess you got me on Alivio rear derailleur and shifters, though. The bike also had Panaracer Smoke and Dart tires, at the time, and some ten-year-old Time ATACs.

Current iteration's on the bottom of this page.
http://forums.mtbr.com/beginners-corner/post-your-$1000-2000-hardtail-685402-5.html

Nice long ride on it today with a friend. So that was nice.  Happy Sunday, everybody.

When I think about it, there are two things that spring to mind. First, if I hadn't been in such a rush, I could probably have done a lot better by buying used instead of retail. I'm not sure if BD was around at that point or not, but I do think I benefited from riding this size, 17", against the 19". Second, I'm glad that Specialized has seen fit to produce even their lowest-end mountain bike with pretty traditional XC geometry. When bad timing locked me into that bike when I did start having time to ride more and pick up racing again, it meant that I could stick with replacing what broke - I've never had to do a complete do-over, or move to a new frame. Since I like hardtails, it would't have been terribly difficult, but I still think it fits well in the category of "easier said than done, and has hidden costs." I killed a bike frame not too long ago, and ended up deciding that a new frame was not a feasible option for that, for example. I have a pejorative that I use when I think of the Trek 3- and 4-series geometry, but I'm a liberal and don't like to use it in print. Even pretend, internet print.  So, I don't find a comparison between the 600HT and Trek to be particularly flattering. To either, really.

When I got my 'cross bike in 2008, I was determined to "do it right." So I went to a few bike shops and rode a few different bikes at each, and a couple of sizes of the one I did buy. Again, I'm glad I did it, it got me onto the right size.

I know you're stoked on your BD bikes. I think you might have as many bikes as I do now. For myself, I'm just as happy that I've spent more of my time and even taken a hit on some of the builds getting bikes built on frames I'm happy with. If they could all magically have nicer builds, I guess that'd be cool, but it's more important to me to be able to set them up for good fit and handling and for me, in the absence of a reference bike that starts with a test ride.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Here's a good one.  Don't tell your wife where you saw it, if you buy it.
> 
> Cannondale Lefty hardtail, XTR, XT
> 
> ...


Kinda funny you had to look through a week's worth of Omaha Craigslist ads to find a good deal...the link you posted for the Cannondale is from April 9th. 

You can learn a lot from building a bike, but beware, if you are someone who is pre-disposed to early balding and grey hair, building a bike will accelerate that process! :madman:

In my case, I learned a crap load about bikes by starting from scratch and rebuilding from a Trek 820 frame. Even though that project didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped, swapping everything over to a new Leader hardtail frame worked at nicely for me, so I HIGHLY encourage frame swaps for anyone who thinks their frame is too small or too big. In most cases, you can usually find a happy medium about which frame size to get by doing a little research online. In some cases, you will find that not all of the parts swap over, such as headsets or bottom brackets, but for the most part, its a fairly simple process.

It would be nice to be able to test ride every bike you are thinking of buying, but when you consider the value you can get online, that's not always the best option. Let's face it, like it or hate it, we are in the age of the internet, and many happy customers have found exactly what they want online, in terms of both sizing and quality, without having to do a ride at a local bike store to find out. However, for some people, who either lack technical skills to tune bikes or who don't have a friend to tune their bike for them, buying online may not be the best option.

Including the 600HT that is on the way here, I now have 4 bikes. But according to The Rules ( see Velominati › The Rules ) , that's only 1 bike more than the MINUMUM number of bikes that one should own, but still 1 less than ideal...


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I took about a week and a half to find my track bike too. I just stuck a feed on my home page that kept track of a Craig's List search. I actually bumped into the ad when I opened a CL page to revise my price up - figured I'd do it in steps until I got to the start of track season. So, I don't think putting in some bracket prices and search terms made searching CL a particularly arduous exercise, and I do find mine to be full of crap too, if I don't do that.

I hadn't read the 510H build thread before. Normally I find them kind of boring, but yours was an exception. If you're going to bring it up, you might include a link, so the poster knows how what you're suggesting turned out for you. I think goals and perspective are pretty important in how a person approaches buying bikes, and your threads really make both of our points better than I think our posts do.


----------



## Mountain916 (Apr 9, 2012)

I appreciate everyone's detailed feedback. I love this website. I will definitely post when I get my wife a ride.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I took about a week and a half to find my track bike too. I just stuck a feed on my home page that kept track of a Craig's List search. I actually bumped into the ad when I opened a CL page to revise my price up - figured I'd do it in steps until I got to the start of track season. So, I don't think putting in some bracket prices and search terms made searching CL a particularly arduous exercise, and I do find mine to be full of crap too, if I don't do that.
> 
> I hadn't read the 510H build thread before. Normally I find them kind of boring, but yours was an exception. If you're going to bring it up, you might include a link, so the poster knows how what you're suggesting turned out for you. I think goals and perspective are pretty important in how a person approaches buying bikes, and your threads really make both of our points better than I think our posts do.


I'd LOVE to have a better Craigslist section for bikes here in Omaha. However, if we did, I'd be up to like 12 bikes! 

Glad you liked the Leader build thread. Honestly, I need to add to it, since I've pretty much swapped everything out except for the cranks, bottom bracket, and headset. My friend, who does my derailleur adjustments and other bike related stuff, was the benefactor of parts I didn't want or need for both the Leader and the Trek 820.

I've nicknamed my Leader "The Money Pit" since I've put so much darn money into the thing, for pretty minor upgrades (e.g. going from an 80mm Rockshox Dart 2 to a 100mm RST Omega lockout fork). However, I'm pretty much done doing upgrades, and it is now a singlespeed. I think, though, that I would have saved lots of money had I just purchased a Bikes Direct bike and swapped the parts over to the Leader frame.

I've only ordered 1 mountain bike from Bikes Direct, and that was a Windsor Cliff 4500, which felt too small at first, but it grew on me, and I liked the sizing. I'm interested in seeing how the 600HT is different, but I'm pretty sure the frame geometry is going to be similar, except I think the "long travel" will make a difference in the feel (not sure if it will be 100 or 120mm), and of course, the parts are a lot better than the Windsor.

I've timed myself on the first part of a mountain bike course here in Omaha, and on my Schwinn FS and Leader singlespeed, the times are nearly identical, at about 18 and a half minutes (18:42 with the Leader). I'm going to time myself on the Motobecane to see if my time is faster or not. I may end up going with another frame, but first I want to see how the 600HT stacks up against the other two bikes. My guess is that for now, I'll probably want to keep the 600HT frame, because I can see the potential benefit of having the shorter top tube over the Leader (e.g. making it easier to "wing" the bike - the Windsor was great for jumps, and I expect the same for the 600HT), but we will see.

Anyway, for those interested, here are the threads on the Leader build and singlespeed conversion:

http://forums.mtbr.com/beginners-corner/leader-510h-frame-build-***photos****-737782.html

http://forums.mtbr.com/singlespeed/...my-mountain-bike-into-singlespeed-777644.html


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> My fiancee's happier to ride her hybrid than one of my racing bikes, even if it's set up for her. Go figure.


By the way, congrats on your engagement. :thumbsup: I've read in other threads where it seemed like you and your biking "date" didn't see eye to eye, so I'm glad it worked out for you, even though she rides a hybrid!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

LOL, thanks. We generally get along pretty well, but she's not particularly comfortable on bikes. Lucky there are more things to life.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> LOL, thanks. We generally get along pretty well, but she's not particularly comfortable on bikes. Lucky there are more things to life.


I've got a Japanese friend who married a Chinese girl. He likes to snowboard, karaoke, and swing dance. She likes none of these things, so he does them alone, while she stays home. Recently, I got him into mountain biking, and he managed to dislocate his shoulder about a month ago on his mountain bike. She does not like to mountain bike either, but they have been together for 22 years, in spite of their differences. So, its probably better than she doesn't like to bike, because that will give you extra time apart, and they say that absence makes the heart grow fonder.......


----------



## airic81 (Sep 8, 2011)

SOrry OT question, i've been eyeing this 600ht for the past week, but should i just throw my money towards 08 diamondback response sport for $175 that i found on CL?

BikePedia - 2008 Diamondback Response Sport Complete Bicycle

EDIT: Damn i thnk i should throw my money towards the 600ht bc of the better components...


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

So today the 600HT arrived. Only had about an hour to assemble it between work shifts (overtime), and on top of that, my computer caught a nasty virus, which appears to have either wiped my hard drive or seriously damaged my computer, so I was fiddling with that at the same time I was trying to assemble the Motobecane. Needless to say, I'm only about half way finished with the assembly (disc brakes and rotors on the front wheel are not attached), but I do have some first impressions, and was able to take it for a brief test ride in the parking lot of my apartment complex.

The top tube looks really short, even shorter than the Windsor by a hair. I did take a brief measurement, but I was in a hurry to get back to work, so I don't know how accurate it was, and the Motobecane was upsidedown when I did it. The measurement only came up about a half inch shorter than my Leader frame, but I'm going to re-measure later...maybe it was just my perception. The frame is of really good quality, however, just not sure if I like the sizing, so I may indeed swap the frame.

On that note, for the benefit of everyone reading this, I'm going to take it to the mountain bike course this weekend and see how the 600HT stacks up against the Schwinn FS and the Leader. The tires and rims on the Schwinn FS and 600HT are pretty much identical, so taking out the frame difference, it will be an fair comparison. I really am curious to see how the handling feels and to see if I can finish the course faster on the Moto.

Not sure if I like the handlebars and stem or not. In the pictures, I liked the look better than the generic ones I had on my Windsor (which are now on my Leader), but in person, I don't like them as much. The seatpost is on the short side, and I will probably end up replacing it, or just grab the seat off my Leader and use it, which also has the old Windsor seat on it - yes, the Windsor makes a great spare parts bike! Pedals were standard Bikes Direct platform pedals that come stock on a lot of Bikes Direct bikes, but I've already replaced them with Shimano M520 clipless.

In my brief test ride, the 600HT felt ok, kind of upright, but didn't feel overly short. I had not yet adjusted the position of the saddle, but I did get that "on the bike" vs "in the bike" feeling. Of course, when you ride a bike on dirt, it changes your perception quite a bit, so I really won't be able to give an accurate perception of it until I take it off road. I hadn't yet adjusted the rear derailleur, but it actually shifted great. The front derailleur didn't shift at all, but to set up the housing correctly on the front of the bike to get the handlebars right, I disconnected it in the rear, so that may have played a factor. The Dart 2 Fork (which does include a lockout) appears to have 100mm of travel (haven't measured it yet), but did feel like a lesser fork than my RST Omega. Of course, I haven't yet adjusted it or taken it off road. Rear brake seemed to work all right. 

So early impressions are overall decent bike, but I'm not jumping up and down about some of the things I mentioned above. The real test will be how it rides, and how it stacks up against my other bikes during the off road time trial, and we will see how it handles. Anyway, stay tuned and check back after this weekend to see how the 600HT fares against the competition!

Forgot to mention that it does feel a little heavier than I expected.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

If this frame doesn't work out for you, maybe this is your opportunity to get one that's really right. Nice bare frames are a little more expensive, but I think you'll be pretty stoked on how they set up.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> If this frame doesn't work out for you, maybe this is your opportunity to get one that's really right. Nice bare frames are a little more expensive, but I think you'll be pretty stoked on how they set up.


I've thought about that - spending $300 to $400 on a really good frame. Honestly, I really like the Sette frames, but they only come in a 18", and that could be a hair too big - same with Nashbar. Do you have any suggestions in that price range? I'd probably also have to invest in a seat post, handlebar, and stem too! LOL Everything else on the bike seems decent. We will see if the left crank arm falls off the FSA crank as the reviews say - almost had that happen on the Schwinn, which also has an FSA, but my friend noticed it was lose and tightened it up, just before the ride. Good timing!

If I hadn't already "been there, done that", I'd swap everything over to the Leader, but I'd like to go in a new direction for something different.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Pricepoint actually could be a good source. The Serum Elite has pretty standard XC geometry. A little expensive. They also carry the Soma Groove, which is a classy-looking bike and from my home town, although I remember it having a somewhat short top tube.

bikeman.com has a ton of frames. I think they're overstock, mostly, because it's major-brand stuff but sometimes they'll have something weird like a team edition of a frame - not "team" but a specific team. The Surly Ogre has your name written all over it, but it'll take a couple years to show up for your price. Of course, the wonders of EBay could speed that up.

Check out on-one.co-uk. I was drooling over the Whippet until I demoed a 29er. But they have a bunch of different frames for different riding styles, and really a lot seem pretty cool. Some have a slotted dropout with a derailleur hanger, so perfect for you. Many frames are available well within your budget. They have a US affiliate, but last I saw, the selection was limited. So you'd likely just have to suck it up and pay shipping.

You've probably seen my rants about nominal sizing a couple times by now, so I won't bother a repeat. Suffice it to say, figure out what reach and ETT you need, and if you need to care about head tube length, and don't worry so much about what the frame size is labeled. You've also got a lot more experience of the uselessness of nominal sizing at this point than I do.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

*Ride Report!*

After spending most of the day trying to fix my computer and do my taxes, I was finally able to finish building the Motobecane 600HT. I tightened the bolts on the crankset, installed the front brake, put new cleats on my shoes, and went for a ride.

Honestly, the 600HT was a lot more fun to ride than I expected it to be, and I don't think I'll be needing a new frame. For some reason, getting it out on the trail made a huge difference for me in terms of how the bike felt...it almost seems like a perfect fit. The handlebar and stem worked fine, and I was able to get the seatpost adjusted to the right height, in spite of the fact that its a little short.

Even though I haven't yet adjusted the derailleurs, out of the box shifting worked great, and I expect it to get even better when my friend has time to make the adjustments. The bike pedals very easily, and the Tektro IO brakes work fine - much better than the Tektro Novelas that came stock on the Windsor. On that note, here is a thread that helped me get the front brake adjusted:

http://forums.mtbr.com/brake-time/adjusting-$%25-tektro-io-brakes-527077.html

On tonight's ride, I was able to do the time trial. As I was riding, I thought I was going to kill my previous time by around 3 minutes, but I still finished the ride 12 seconds behind the time on the Leader singlespeed! :madman: So, not sure if this is going to be a race bike - might have to convert my Leader back to a 27 speed to do that, but I think riding the Moto will keep me happy for the summer.

In doing some comparisons between the two bikes, the Moto has an effective top tube that is about 3/4 of an inch shorter than the Leader. If anyone is interested learning about frame geometry (which, honestly, I know almost nothing about), I can post side by side photos if someone with more knowledge than me wants to explain the potential advantage of one style of frame over another (e.g. head tube and seat tube angle, effective top tube length, seat positioning relative to the cranks, etc).

On the downside, I did notice a little instability on the front end of the Moto if I leaned over one way or another, but I think that had to do with the angle of the tire tread hitting the ground. My guess is that lowering the tire pressure will fix that. Also, the 600HT is not the fastest bike to climb hills on, but it seemed to do well on short climbs that weren't too steep. Also, not sure how I feel about the handling - overall, it felt fine, but there was one section of the course after a steep drop that I veered off into the grass more than I usually do, but that could have been the line I chose.

In the weeks ahead I'm going to do more time trials and compare and contrast my 3 mountain bikes. If the Moto is ever faster than the Schwinn or the Leader, I will post it, but for the moment, it gets 3rd place in the speed category, but I expect that to change once I'm a little more familiar with the bike and after doing all of the proper adjustments (there is a nob on the bottom of the fork and I don't even know what it does, LOL). However, in the "fun" category, the 600HT wins, hands down! :thumbsup:

Just for kicks, I may time myself on my Motobecane Cyclocross on the same course. 

So, the 600HT gets my nod of approval. Definitely a fun bike to ride. My guess is that Bikes Direct is either phasing it out entirely or upgrading the frame, as this model is on clearance, but if you can ride a 13" or a 15", which they still have available, this is a great bike for the money. Of course, there are also other bikes in this series at very reasonable prices, but based on my previous experience with a Windsor vs Motobecane frames, I'd have to give the edge to the Motobecane HT series. Having said that, my Motobecane 600HT has much better specs than my Windsor Cliff 4500, and I'm sure that biases me in favor of the HT series over the Windsor.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Last night I took the 600HT back to the mountain bike course to see if I could improve upon my time. This time around, even though I thought that I was slower than last night's time, I actually improved my time to finish at 18:33. I didn't look at my watch until 10 about yards after I crossed the finish line, so this time is basically on par with my time on my Schwinn Rocket Comp FS. I was also able to get the next section of the course timed too, but I don't have a time on that side of the course with the Schwinn FS. Today after work, I'm going to ride my Schwinn FS to see how it stacks up to the 600HT on the second part of the course, which has more gradual climbs and descents, and to find out if I can get lower than the 18:30 mark on the first part of the course, which has more short climbs and descents, with a lot more curves.

During yesterday's ride, I tried to focus a little more on riding techniques, like cadence and leaning forward when on climbs, so I'm finding that there are little things you can change while you are on the ride to get faster. I hope to learn more techniques as the riding season progresses - if you have any tips about how to get faster, please list them here - or maybe I should start a new thread for that!

I did notice that part of the reason the Moto is a little sluggish up hills is because I haven't been shifting to the largest cog in the rear (28t) because of the lack of derailleur adjustments, which causes more noise and firction in the rear of the bike, which makes me paranoid and hesitant, so I'm not going to ride the Moto again until I get those adjustments made. I expect to get faster after that happens, because I will be able to go full out without hesitating or being paranoid I'm going to break something. In the higher gears thugh, it was much smoother. I did notice that my hands were practically numb after I finished the second section of the course, which I timed at 40:12, and a lot of that had to do with the fork, so I'm going to loosen up the preload on the fork a little bit as well. I may also try parts of the course with the forks in lockout mode, to see what kind of an impact that has on my time.

Finally, after about a month or so, I'm going ot do an expiriment. I'm going to buy a different frame, probably a low end 18" Sette since I can get it for less than $100, then swap all of the parts of the 600HT over to that frame (well, assuming everything is compatable). I want to see how large of an impact that has on my time trials and riding experience.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

About the only time I can see lockout being useful off-road is if you're climbing out of the saddle. Even then, since the fork that I could get for "my" price and on short notice doesn't have it, I've been pleasantly surprised to discover how little difference it makes. Which is funny, because I find the way FS bikes sink to be really disconcerting.

IME, numb hands are really about fit. See if you can ride the Moto comfortably on an asphalt bike path. I bet it still messes with your hands. If so, often the solution is to raise the bars. Sometimes if a cockpit is really too cramped, you actually need to lower them or get a longer stem, but I don't think that comes up nearly as often.

I wouldn't bother with another low end hardtail as an experiment. I think it'll be pretty similar to what you've got. Maybe it makes more sense to visit one of your local shops and hop on something with traditional XC geometry. That longer top tube is either going to feel like you've been let out of a tiny prison cell or it's going to make you dump a lot more weight on your hands. Either way, it shouldn't take long to notice a difference, and get an idea of whether it's something you'd want to do on purpose.

Check out parktool.com for instructions for tuning everything but your suspension fork. You shouldn't need your friend's help for the basics anymore.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

I think my hands are actually pretty jacked, but there is a specific section on the second part of the course which rattles you quite a bit, and it definately effected my hands yesterday. I don't notice it as much on my FS because I've got really spungy forks, and the rear suspension, of course, absorbs lots of the bumps for you. I did order a pair of gel Fox gloves which reviewers state will alliviate the numbnesss a little bit, but we will see. I did notice my hands didn't hurt as much when I had my 30mm riser bar on the Leader, but I didn't like the backsweep on that bar, so I switched over to the Windsor handlebar bar and stem for that bike.

We will see if locking out the fork "really" makes any differnce or not. I can see it making me a little faster on climbs, and it should make a huge difference on the longer climbs on the second part of the course. That's one thing I can't test out on the FS because it doesn't have a lockout fork, but I can test that out on the Moto to see if there is a direct correlation between locking out the fork and speed increases. So Andrew, we will see whether or not your theory is true.

On that note, that's why I want to do the frame swap. With all of the parts being the same, its a nice way of answering the question of how much a difference minor changes in geometry will make...such as top tube length, head angle, seat angle, etc. Its one of those things a lot of people have strong opinions about, but not too many people have tested. A lot of people can say that they upgraded to another bike and it made a huge difference, but not too many people have taken parts off one frame, put them on another frame, and timed themselves to find out how much faster or slower the bike was on a particular course, or multiple courses for that matter. Honestly, its something I'm really curious about.

I can do a lot of the basic stuff myself, and even did a half way decent job of installing and dialing in the front brake, but derailleurs and shifters still stump me. I understand the general process a lot more now than I used to, but like some others in this forum, no matter how much we read about how to adjust derailleurs, they still give us fits. With enough practice, I'm thinking that by the year 2015, I should have it down. Maybe.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

While you're at it, try the 'cross bike on that loop. Give yourself a lap or two to get used to it - it's a real eye-opener - and then clock yourself. Or if you use strava.com and a smartphone, you can just do as many laps as you want and not worry about timing, then pull your data afterwards.


----------



## SJKevin (Nov 30, 2011)

Mountain916 said:


> I'm just hesitant...my wife is 5'7''. Would the 17 inch frame with 26 inch wheels work for her for the most part? It says for people from 5'5'' to 5'8''. The stand over height is 29 inches and my wifes inseam was about 32. I'm thinking she would need bigger, but i'm a noob.


I ride a medium 700 ds and I'm 5'7. The fit is great. You may have to cut the seat post a couple inches but medium is probably the right height.


----------



## raven1911 (Jul 14, 2011)

Good thread. I am looking for my wife as well.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

I've been reading a little about frame geometry, and a few things are starting to make more sense in terms of the way I "think" my bikes are performing, and the reasons *why* they perform the way they do. I won't know for sure until I time myself in specific sections of on the trail to confirm this, but here is one factor why your bike might be slower or faster vs another bike on a specific section of the trail:

*Head Angle:* This is the angle of your fork in relation to the ground. Let's say your head angle is 71 degrees, as is the case with the Motobecane 600HT. As the head angle approaches 90 degrees, climbing should be easier, or faster. So, in theory, a bike with a head angle of 71 degrees should climb easier or faster than a bike with a head angle of 70 degrees.

Going downhill, the opposite is true. As the head angle moves further away from 90 degrees, it will perform better going downhill. So, in theory, a bike with a head angle of 70 degrees will go downhill faster than a bike with a head angle of 71 degrees. I've never understood this until now, but you could say that a bike with a 70 degree head angle is "slacker" than a bike with a 71 degree head angle.

It seems like I'm moving faster on the Schwinn Full Suspension going downhill compared to my other bikes. Part of the reason for this is because a FS design reduces the amount of bouncing the rear end of your frame does as you are heading down hill, which allows you to move at a faster rate than a hardtail because your rear suspension absorbs most of the bumps, instead of your bike frame on a hardtail.

Unfortunately, I don't have geometry specs on the Schwinn (Rocket Comp if anyone knows where to find geometry specs), but I'll bet the other reason the Schwinn is faster going downhill has to do with the angle of the fork, which I believe is slacker than my other hardtails. This would also explain why the Schwinn is slower going up hill, not to say that its *THIRTY SIX* pound weight isn't also a factor. :madman:

And check this out...

My Leader seems to be the fastest climber of my 3 mountain bikes. Of course, its at a disadvantage since I only have *ONE GEAR*, but it has a 71.5 degree head angle, which means in theory, it *should* be faster than the 600 HT when climbing up hill, but slower downhill.

In addition to getting overall times of each section of the trail with the Schwinn FS vs the 600HT (and later the experimental frame when I buy it and swap the parts over from the 600HT), I'm also going to time myself with each bike on the gradual climbs and descents, which should be a really good indicator of how frame geometry and design effect a *specific downhill or uphill* section of the trail.

For the experimental frame, I wonder if I should go with the Nashbar frame, because it has the exact same head angle and seat angle of the 600HT, expect the top tube and seat tube being longer. That would give a better indication of how "just" the effective top tube has an effect on performance. Then again, that might be kind of a boring experiment, so maybe not...:skep:

My one thought about how a longer top tube makes you faster or more efficient is because it forces you to angle your torso forward, shifting your center of gravity toward the front of the bike. I suppose it could also effect the ride in other ways and force you to use other muscles because your back and legs, particularly hamstrings, would be at different angles. which could potentially effect the ride.

There are obviously many factors that contribute to how fast or slow you ride (top tube length, seat angle, tire size, etc.). Getting back to the original question, you can't say that head tube angle is ALWAYS the main factor at determining speed up or downhill, but it is kind of cool to understand how bike geometry effects this. As I learn more about this, I'll post more about it. If anyone wants to add to what I'm saying (or correct it if I'm wrong LOL), go for it!


----------



## hOlykamOtie* (Apr 20, 2012)

Nice reviews here. I'm also thinking of buying this bike, but will the 15" frame still fit my height 5'6 1/2"?? I think my inseam is 29-30.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Head angle is more important to how the bike holds a line and responds to hits and compressions. It's easier to keep the front end weighted on a bike with a steeper head angle, so it's easy to hold a line on a climb, especially when they're slow and technical. So other things being equal, it'll be easier for me to climb something technical cleanly if I have a steeper head angle. I'm sure there's a limit and I'd speculate that it's less than 90, but I don't know what it is.

On the way down, I feel like bikes with a steeper head angle want to rotate around the front wheel more, and ride up and over things less. That means it's harder to keep the bike under control when banging into things or riding through compressions on the way down.

Neither of these makes the bike slower or faster per se, but it should be a little easier for a rider to ride something faster with a head angle that's conducive to that kind of riding. I think the effect on fun factor is bigger - it's more fun when I don't have to fight the bike.  The point being, the effect on speed is a second-order effect, probably biggest for an intermediate level rider who can flow well some of the time. For someone who's pretty bad all of the time, it's not going to matter very much, and for the most skillful riders, I think it's only important if they're competing and it facilitates finishing a climb just a little faster for the XC guys, or carrying just a little more speed through bumpy sections for the DH guys.

I experience changes in reach as hurting me or not hurting me, rather than making me faster or slower. I suppose I'm probably also slower on a bike with the wrong reach because I'm in pain. But my attitude about setting up reach and drop on a bike is that when I hit the combination that doesn't hurt me, I'm done asking questions. I tried going to a longer stem a while ago and it made my back hurt after about a half hour. More recently, I had to replace my suspension fork and switched to something with less steer tube. Having my stem tipped down with fewer spacers hurt my back and neck. So I moved it to the bottom of the stack and flipped it up, and it's better. When the reach is too short, it can mess with my lower back too, and it also just makes it hard for me to keep the front wheel tracking. So for me, top tube length is about having a bike that supports the reach that works for me with a stem length that gives me handling I like.

Going fast on a mountain bike is a matter of developing more power or wasting less. Developing more power is mostly aerobic capacity, and somewhat strength. So what I want from my bike is that it stay out of my way - not mess with my riding position and cause me to develop less power, and not have bizarre handling that makes me waste energy, either via the brakes, traveling a longer distance than I need too like if I wander around on a trail and have to work hard to make corrections, not pogo, not get squishy when I get out of the saddle, etc.

BSNYC put it well, _"Bikes aren't fast. People are fast. Bikes are overpriced."_ I do think that bikes can get in the way of fast people being fast and particularly cheap bikes can be very frustrating to own and ride. But I think once one hits a certain threshold, I think for XC that's a hardtail that fits with a Deore or maybe Alivio build, a suspension fork with tunable spring rate and damping, and nice tires that are appropriate to the trail, any further speed increases by changing the equipment around are going to be very small. It's kind of a democratizing aspect of the sport, actually - lots of people make more money than me, especially since I'm working on a degree right now. But if I can protect a little more time every week from the rest of my life and I spend it on my bike, I can still go and be faster than them. Unless they have better genetics, anyway, then it's all over. 

I often second-guess my bike purchases. It's a gear sport, and I think we all wonder if we're that one amazing tire away from being Danny MacAskill or Julien Absalon, but the reality one has to keep in mind is that those guys are skillful and fast respectively because of the hours they put into becoming ridiculous on bikes.

Pin a number on some weekend. It's an eye-opener.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

hOlykamOtie* said:


> Nice reviews here. I'm also thinking of buying this bike, but will the 15" frame still fit my height 5'6 1/2"?? I think my inseam is 29-30.


Don't buy a 15"! Honestly, I think it would be too small. You would be better off going with a 17" Dawes Haymaker 1500 or Windsor Cliff 4700. If you get the 15", I think you would end up regretting it, or just swapping out the frame, even if you have to pay a bit more for the other models. Here are the links:

Mountain Bikes - MTB - Dawes Haymaker 1500

Save up to 60% off new Mountain Bikes - MTB - Windsor Cliff4700


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I often second-guess my bike purchases. It's a gear sport, and I think we all wonder if we're that one amazing tire away from being Danny MacAskill or Julien Absalon, but the reality one has to keep in mind is that those guys are skillful and fast respectively because of the hours they put into becoming ridiculous on bikes.
> 
> Pin a number on some weekend. It's an eye-opener.


My friend just won two races yesterday on an old "Frankenstein" K2 Zed 1, with parts from my Windsor, Leader, and Trek 820. LOL He did it on a bike with V-brakes, and beat guys with all sorts of different bikes. He felt the main difference between rider A and rider B has much more to do with how hard the person trains, rather than the sticker or geometry of the bike...


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
Couldn't have said it better myself. The point being, at some point you need to say, "This is my bike," and focus on the riding part.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Just broke another personal best with the 600HT and finished the first part of the course at 17:31, about a minute ahead of the Schwinn FS. Still haven't timed myself back on the Schwinn to see if my time on the FS has improved, but I did improve my time for the combined 1st and 2nd sections of the course on the Moto to 36:39, down from 40:12 just four days ago. Also, finished the entire course at 56:34, which is down from around 1:05 on the Schwinn FS. 

The main "downer" about the ride I kept thinking was "I wish this was a FS" after getting bounced around so much in the rear. :madman: My hands were not quite as numb as they were last time, but still bothered me...I suppose adjusting the rebound control on the fork helps, which is that little nob at the bottom of the fork I had previously mentioned.

Also rode a different and more technical course yesterday and did much better on that course than I ever have before on any of my other bikes, so the Moto is working out nicely so far. On that note, here are 2 very unglamorous pictures from after my ride, around "dusk":


----------



## jansondt (Sep 19, 2008)

@getagrip.
Do you think the 15" would fit a women that is 5'5" or would it be too small?


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

jansondt said:


> @getagrip.
> Do you think the 15" would fit a women that is 5'5" or would it be too small?


That's a tough one. You are cutting it really close. According to the Bikes Direct website,

"15 inch fits most 5'1" to 5'4"

So technically, a 15" would be too small, although it might be slightly larger than normal size Motos because of the long travel fork, at least when it comes to standover clearance. Here is what you can do. Check out the Geometry Chart for the Moto here:

Motobecane USA | 26 inch Hardtail Mountain Bikes 400 to 700HT

Now, get a measuring tape and do the Competitive Cyclist Fit calculator (link below) - make sure to choose mountain bike for the fit. Now, compare the measurements the fit calculator gives you and see how close they are - you will have to use your best judgement.

Fit Calculator - Competitive Cyclist

If you get the 600HT and it doesn't fit, you can order a 16" Sette or Nashbar frame for $100, sell the Moto frame, and swap the parts over...but realize that this requires knowledge, special tools, skill, and patience, and realize that some of the parts may not be interchangeable, so if this scares you off, I'd say go for the Windsor Cliff 4700 for $400.


----------



## jansondt (Sep 19, 2008)

She's gonna be mad when I wake her up with a measuring tape in my hand. haha.

She is really only going to ride it twice a year on camping trips but i'd still rather it fit pretty good. 

Thanks for the links and the quick reponse.

This 600ht is so much nicer than my bike. I have an all stock 2004 trek 3700. But I shall soon have an airborne goblin. Just have a 4 wheeler that I have to sell first.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

jansondt said:


> @getagrip.
> Do you think the 15" would fit a women that is 5'5" or would it be too small?


Are you the 5'5" woman, or are you shopping for someone else?


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

jansondt said:


> She's gonna be mad when I wake her up with a measuring tape in my hand. haha.
> 
> She is really only going to ride it twice a year on camping trips but i'd still rather it fit pretty good.
> 
> ...


One thing I also thought about...and makes sense for her since she will only be riding a couple of times per year (but hopefully more) is a Giant Revel 2, which comes in a 16", for only $410:

Revel 2 (Black/Silver) (2012) - Bikes | Giant Bicycles | United States

Still do the measurements, of course, but see how the Revel fits - you will see a sizing chart on the website, but she will also be able to test ride it. In my opinion, the Revel series offers the best value for the money at a local bike store, and it doesn't hurt that she could actually give it a test ride!

Honestly, the Giant Boulder isn't bad either - retails for about $360:

Boulder (2012) - Bikes | Giant Bicycles | United States

The components on these bikes aren't nearly as good as the 600HT, but in her case, I'd go for fit over components, especially since she's kind of borderline.


----------



## jansondt (Sep 19, 2008)

delete, sorry wrong place


----------



## jansondt (Sep 19, 2008)

So I took her measurements and entered them into the calc.

Inseam: 29.7
Trunk: 24.5
Forearm: 13.2
Arm: 23.7
Thigh: 23
Lower Leg: 20.5
Sternal Notch: 54.5
Total Body Height: 66


XC
-------------------------------------------
Standover Height Range: 28.3 - 28.9 inches
Virtual Top Tube: 22.7 - 23.1 inches
Stem Length: 9.2 - 10.8 cm
BB-Saddle Position: 65.5 - 67.0cm
Saddle-Handlebar: 50.9 - 52.5 cm

It seems that the 17" frame on the 600ht is the frame closer to her size but the 15" isn't far off. Maybe these very small changes make all the difference. 

She is in between stand-over height on the 15 and 17. I would think to lean towards the smaller.

But then on the top tube length it's putting her in between the 17 and 19 but it seems that I could just slide the saddle back an inch. or would this mess up the whole geometry thing?

I tried posting a link of the 600ht sizing geometry but it won't let me until I get 10 post.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Sizing calculators are pretty stupid. They make a lot of assumptions that may or may not have any basis in reality. Women's bodies are more diverse than men's, so it's even worse for them. IMHO.

The top tube length on a bike is actually kind of a weird measurement. What really matters is the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube. Like you say, you can just slide the saddle fore and aft. However, the saddle needs to have the right relationship to the pedals, so you can't fix a bad reach by moving it around without making something else worse.

Given your goal for this bike, though, just buy the 15" and don't worry about it. It's different if you're buying for someone you're trying to get into the sport, or for someone who enjoys riding, uses the bike for exercise, trains, etc.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

> Standover Height Range: 28.3 - 28.9 inches
> Virtual Top Tube: 22.7 - 23.1 inches
> Stem Length: 9.2 - 10.8 cm
> BB-Saddle Position: 65.5 - 67.0cm
> ...


The Effective Top Tube on the 15" Motobecane 600HT is 21.7", so that is about an inch shorter than ideal. Also, because the standover will be shorter, that could cause more overall discomfort because more weight will be on her arms. Based on that, and the stats that you posted above, I would not recommend the 15" 600HT.

Yes, you could slide the seat forward or backward, and adjust the seatpost height, and its not a "huge" deal since she will only be riding it once or twice a year, but honestly, I wouldn't do it. Unless she is someone who likes being on a bike that is too small...also, keep in mind that I'm only about an inch to 2 inches taller than her, so our measurements are pretty close.

I think the Windsor Cliff 4700 for $40 more would be a much better move, with a top tube of 570mm, which equates to 22.44". Still a little short by the fit calculator, but I think it would be fine for her. I used to own a 17" Windsor Cliff 4500, which felt a tad small for me, so if that is the case, the 4700 might be a perfect fit for her. After work, I'll check her measurements against mine, but I think her best bet would be the Windsor or one of the Giant models I referenced at a local bike store.

For the record, here is a Youtube video of the Windsor. Does she like yellow? 

Windsor Cliff 4700 Overview - YouTube


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Finally did a time trial with the Schwinn Rocket Comp FS vs the Motobecane 600HT. It was an eye opening experience! :eekster:

For those who want to compare the bikes, here is my review of the Schwinn Rocket FS, with several photos. I'm going to have to add to that post, because after my experience with the 600HT, my perception of the Schwinn FS has changed a little:

http://forums.mtbr.com/beginners-corner/schwinn-rocket-comp-full-suspension-review-773650.html

Here are the results. I've divided the times into three different sections of the course, plus a total time at the end. For those who don't want to scroll up and dig through the thread to find the results on the 600HT, I'm re-posting them below just for comparison purposes. Also, some of the numbers below may appear to be different than what I previously posted, because I had combined the times for sections 1 and 2 above.

*Section 1 Lots of turns and quick climbs / descents:*

Motobecane 600HT: 17:31
Schwinn Rocket FS: 18:27

*Section 2 Gradual climbs and descents, plus one very technical section I call the "humps", because its kind of like a camel's back.*

Motobecane 600HT: 19:08
Schwinn Rocket FS: 20:29

*Section 3 Fairly technical at first with some quick turns, obstacles, jumps, and quick drops, but levels out to a long flat section with a slight climb, followed by a slight descent. Several larger drops and jumps in the long flat section as well.*

Motobecane 600HT: 19:55
Schwinn Rocket FS: 22:04

*Overall time*

Motobecane 600HT: 56:34
Schwinn Rocket FS: 61:01

*Conclusion:*

When I compare the two rides I had, the Motobecane 600HT beats the Schwinn Rocket Comp FS hands down. It corners better, climbs faster, and is just flat out more fun to ride. As you see from the time trials, its also a faster bike. However, in fairness to the Schwinn the results may be slightly skewed...

1. On *Section 1* of the trail, I ran over a stick which got caught in the spokes of the Schwinn FS. I had to stop for about 10 seconds to get the thing out. So really, on that section, my time would closer to 18:17 or even a little faster when you consider the momentum that was lost.

2. My front derailleur on the Schwinn FS doesn't work very well, and as a result, I have a tendency to stay in the middle ring, rather than downshift. While this speeds me up in certain sections of the ride, it also slows me down, especially on steep climbs. In fairness to the 600HT, the largest cog on the cassette is only 28t!

3. I finished the ride on the Schwinn FS as it was getting dark. I couldn't see very well in one stretch in *Section 3* toward the end of the ride, underneath a bunch of trees, so this slowed me down a little bit.

4. When you combine my times from Section 1 & 2, at 38:56, the Schwinn FS beats my time from 5 days ago on the 600HT from, when I finished at 40:12. This just goes to show that you can be better on some days than others.

The main thing I noticed tonight on the Schwinn FS was how much harder I was working, but still going slower - I was really trying hard to beat my time on the Moto, but what I found is that I was expending more energy and just tiring myself out. This obviously has to do with the very spongy extra long travel forks and too much rear suspension bob, not to mention* THIRTY SIX POUNDS*!

So, I may do another ride just to prove that this wasn't a fluke, but I don't see myself finishing a whole lot faster...maybe a minute or two.

Anyway, I'm still really impressed with the 600HT. Maybe not the best bike, and certainly not the lightest (I will have it weighed soon), but definitely a top of the line $360 bike!

Not sure what to do with the Schwinn, but not much need for it since the Moto outperforms it. Part of me wants to sell it outright and be done with it, but that experimental side of me wants to sell the Schwinn FS frame and fork, swap what's left over to a Sette Reken frame, use the RST Omega fork that is on my Leader on the Sette frame, and then do time trials with the Sette vs the Moto.

Do people reading this like the idea of time trials, or are you just wanting this thread to go away and end?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I'm waiting for you to read up on statistics and find out how hard it is to construct an experiment that tells you anything. 

I've also decided that you're more interested in experimenting with different bike setups than mountain biking. Which is fine, there's room for everybody in the world. Just a different perspective from mine, and something to think about when you talk to others about choosing bikes.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I've also decided that you're more interested in experimenting with different bike setups than mountain biking.


Honestly, I wish more "know it all" types such as yourself would do more experimenting. After doing some time trials and tests on different bikes, you might discover that you don't know as much as you think you do, and some of your conclusions are off. Its one thing to make statements and predictions about how different bikes perform under different (or the same) conditions, but its an entirely different thing to put your money where your mouth is and test it out.

On that note, your statement above is false. Its not that experimenting with different bike setups is more important than mountain biking. Its more about trying things out that I haven't tried before, and trying to improve as a mountain biker in the process. Above and beyond that, its about finding what the perfect bike is for me. I haven't quite figured it out, but I'm getting closer...thanks to doing time trial tests like I have in this thread.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

It always takes me some time to get my setup dialed in and then I try to quit screwing around with it. I've also taken the opportunity, when it's come up, to demo different kinds of bikes. I was curious about 29ers, I went to a demo day and tried one. (liked it) I was curious about FS bikes, I've now tried a few. (liked none) Last time I bought a retail road bike, I tried three different ones before I bought. I try more tires than I care to admit. 

There's a particular piece of road I marked on Strava as a "speed trap," a section that I tend to hit at, or close to, a high cruising speed and where I'm not typically interrupted. It's on a lot of my regular routes and when I do intervals, it's usually on that loop too. So I've got a lot of times on it, from 57 seconds to 81 seconds. (on track and road bikes, a longer time on the MTB) That's a pretty huge variation, given the length of the segment. Granted I'm not doing anything to try to get it to be more convergent, but that's part of why I think it takes a relatively large sample set and some attention to controlling other variables to get an idea of what the bike is actually contributing. From my own various records, some being places that I've ridden on different classes of bike, I think the class of the bike matters a fair amount, my mood and fitness matter a lot, and within a class of bike, differences aren't particularly large.

I think if you're going to get meaningful times, you need to figure out a way to control for your fitness. For me, I think my second hour of riding is my best, my third is pretty comparable when I'm in decent shape, and then it's downhill for the rest of the day. Although I'm pretty happy with "hour 6 Andrew," he still pulled out a decent sprint at the end.  So if I warmed up for a half hour or so and then tried to ride the same thing twice on two different bikes, maybe with a short loop on the new one in between to re-focus myself, I think I'd get semi-okay data. By repeating that a few times, say four or six, and varying the order, I think I could even come up with a sample set that I had some confidence in. I'd probably be able to do two of those trials in a week, and they'd need not to be on consecutive days.

Actually that wouldn't be a bad way to do a build cycle if I had the two bikes in hand. I'll be curious to hear your results.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Just a different perspective from mine, and something to think about when you talk to others about choosing bikes.


If you are referring to the advice I've given in this thread, I know what I'm talking about...and you have no idea how many bikes I've test ridden over the past couple of years. I'm definately not an expert in the higher end bikes, but I've test ridden lots of bikes priced at under $700 from the big three (Giant, Trek, Specialized). Over the past year, some of my perceptions have changed as I've gained experience, and if I could go back, I wouldn't have made some purchase decisions I've made, but at the same time, you live and learn as you go.



AndrwSwitch said:


> Actually that wouldn't be a bad way to do a build cycle if I had the two bikes in hand. I'll be curious to hear your results.


While I'd like to do the test and the build, it seems like it would be a pain in the a$$. At this point, I'm leaning toward just selling the Schwinn FS, being done with the thing, and moving on. What I do know is that I'd like another full suspension, but its going to have to perform better than the Schwinn FS did. The 600HT is fine for now, but I know I'm going to want to upgrade. My next bike purchase is probably going to be a $1000+ 26er or 29er FS. Actually, I'm eyeballing one particular bike that sells for about $1200, but I'd have to sell both the Schwinn and the Moto before I could justify purchasing it. At that point, I think I'll be done purchasing bikes for a while. Well, maybe. The n+1 rule always seems to get me!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Sorry - build cycle as in a three-week (or so) cycle in a training plan in which one works on getting faster. Actually the particular bike isn't even really relevant and a lot of racers would do a good chunk of this kind of cycle on the road.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Sorry - build cycle as in a three-week (or so) cycle in a training plan in which one works on getting faster. Actually the particular bike isn't even really relevant and a lot of racers would do a good chunk of this kind of cycle on the road.


I gotcha. But that wasn't my goal with the time trial test I did. It was more about finding what frame geometry and style of bike I would be fastest on, regardless of my level of fitness. What I found out that I was faster on a Moto 600HT than a Schwinn FS.

You could say that I need to do more tests to find out if the Moto is truly faster than the Schwinn...maybe average the times of 3 time trials vs 1, but I don't feel I need to do that at this point, because the answer is obvious to me not only after doing time trials, but how I feel when I'm riding the bike that I'm on. Would I be faster on a hardtail with a longer top tube than the Moto? Or a 29er? Or a FS with a more modern design than a Schwinn FS? Don't know yet, but ultimately, that's what I want to find out.

Getting back to your point, though, what I've discovered is that through my tests, I'm becoming a better rider, and its great conditioning because I'm pushing myself harder than I normally would, and I'm trying out different techniques on those rides to get faster and improve my riding ability. So, you could say that even though I'm trying to figure out what frame suits me best by doing time trials, I'm discovering how to get faster on those rides, and how hard to push myself if I want to be competitive in a race.

Now, an hour long training ride is laughable to some people, but considering that at this time last year, it took me about 30 minutes to complete just the *FIRST section *of the course, and was too tired to even attempt the 2nd or 3rd sections of the course tells me that I'm doing something right. Even a few months ago, it took me close to an hour and a half to complete the course, so I'm quite happy with being able to do it in less than an hour, and part of that has to do with the time trials I've been doing. :thumbsup:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

One of the problems with using qualitative impressions of bikes is that more efficient bikes often feel like they're going slower. We tend to interpret some of the less pleasant aspects of going fast - the bike shaking, for example - as meaning the bike's going fast. This is why people insist on overinflating their road tires. My road bike may not feel as fast with less air pressure, but I'm a lot more comfortable and a few different labs, notably Schwalbe, have tested lower rolling resistance at lower pressure. So while I'm too lazy to purposefully make my road bike less pleasant to ride and then see if it makes me slower, I'm happy enough to ride around with my tires at a little lower pressure and not worry about it.

A lot of XC racers report feeling like they were going slower on their FS bikes and then seeing that they'd actually made a PR. Although since there's only one top-level pro on FS most of the time and they all have them available... I was sort-of relieved to be able to set a new record demoing a 29er hardtail and not a FS, since I don't really like riding FS bikes. But, see below. 

Human performance is also very susceptible to placebos. If you look at how effective a placebo is in a medical setting, it's no surprise. If I hopped on a bike that I thought was faster, I'd have a better chance of making a PR on that ride even if it actually had exactly the same efficiency. I try to put myself in the attitude of "I don't know," because it's impossible to do a double-blind test with something like two different styles of mountain bike. When sports scientists put a lot of effort into constructing an experiment that should get consistent performance from the athletes participating, they still tend to get pretty wild variations, often on the order of +/- 10%. Pretty huge! If your fitness is where you're fading over the course of a ride, it's going to be that much harder to control for it, since riding the bikes back-to-back will just tell you the second one is slower.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Andrew. I'm really mad at you. You are forcing me to go back to the trail with my FS to do another time trial. I really don't want to do that. When you climb hills on a Scwinn Rocket Comp Full Suspension, the reason you feel like you are going slower is because you are!  But just to see if my last night's time was biased (which I doubt), I'm going to do a second time trial on the Scwinn FS. 

I've got more to say later...


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

getagrip said:


> When you climb hills on a Scwinn Rocket Comp Full Suspension, the reason you feel like you are going slower is because you are!


By the way, if anyone has kids that are misbehaving, and you don't want them to misbehave again, make them climb hills on a Schwinn Rocket Comp Full Suspension! They will never misbehave again!


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> One of the problems with using qualitative impressions of bikes is that more efficient bikes often feel like they're going slower. We tend to interpret some of the less pleasant aspects of going fast - the bike shaking, for example - as meaning the bike's going fast. This is why people insist on overinflating their road tires. My road bike may not feel as fast with less air pressure, but I'm a lot more comfortable and a few different labs, notably Schwalbe, have tested lower rolling resistance at lower pressure. So while I'm too lazy to purposefully make my road bike less pleasant to ride and then see if it makes me slower, I'm happy enough to ride around with my tires at a little lower pressure and not worry about it.
> 
> A lot of XC racers report feeling like they were going slower on their FS bikes and then seeing that they'd actually made a PR. Although since there's only one top-level pro on FS most of the time and they all have them available... I was sort-of relieved to be able to set a new record demoing a 29er hardtail and not a FS, since I don't really like riding FS bikes. But, see below.
> 
> Human performance is also very susceptible to placebos. If you look at how effective a placebo is in a medical setting, it's no surprise. If I hopped on a bike that I thought was faster, I'd have a better chance of making a PR on that ride even if it actually had exactly the same efficiency. I try to put myself in the attitude of "I don't know," because it's impossible to do a double-blind test with something like two different styles of mountain bike. When sports scientists put a lot of effort into constructing an experiment that should get consistent performance from the athletes participating, they still tend to get pretty wild variations, often on the order of +/- 10%. Pretty huge! If your fitness is where you're fading over the course of a ride, it's going to be that much harder to control for it, since riding the bikes back-to-back will just tell you the second one is slower.


I totally get what you are saying about the placebo effect. In my case, when I was doing the time trial for each bike, I was riding as hard as I could - I wanted "that" bike to win the trial, whether it was the 600HT or the Schwinn FS. With the case of the Schwinn, though, I had to work harder to go faster, so you could say I wasn't as efficient with my cardio as I was on the Moto. In any case, I don't thing the placebo effect really played a factor.

Having said that, there are other things I was concerned about that could have effected the time difference. When I did the time trial on the Moto, I had eaten about two hours before the ride - can't remember if I had a quick snack before the ride. With the Schwinn FS, I had eaten a large meal 45 minutes before the ride, but I didn't feel sluggish. It was also later in the day, a little warmer, and a little more humid than when I did the time trial with the Moto. I'm more concerned whether or not those factors had anything to do with the difference in time.

But really, the time trials more or less confirmed what I was already suspicious about with the Schwinn FS, but didn't have a time trial to back it up, and this is something I want to bring up when I go back and update the review post for that bike.

About a month ago, I went on a group ride with 3 friends with the Schwinn FS, 2 of which were less experienced riders than me. I could easily beat both of those guys going downhill, but I couldn't keep up with them going uphill or even on the flat section of the trail. Often, all 3 guys were waiting for me to catch up with them, and when I'd finally catch up, I'd be out of breath! Needless to say, it was a pretty humiliating experience for much of that ride.

Not long afterward, I started to use clipless pedals with the Schwinn FS. On the first section of the trail, I had previously timed myself at just under 23 minutes with the Schwinn, but after I went clipless, I reduced that time down to about 18 and a half minutes. That's when I started to become more interested in time trials, because it showed me how much faster I could be by changing one aspect of the bike, in this case, clipless pedals. Now, I'm sure my increase in speed was also due to the fact that I was in better shape than I was during the first time I timed myself, but the pedals also obviosuly made a difference.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that at first, when everyone was blowing by me, I thought it had a lot do to with the kind of shape I was in, but I also realized it had a lot to do with the bike I was riding. While I think both factors played a roll, because of the time trials, I can now see how much of a roll my bike played with not being able to keep up with everyone. Not that I'm all that much better of a rider now as I was back then, but no doubt I'd be able to keep up better on the Moto.

I've got a little more to say here, but once again, I'm out of time.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

getagrip said:


> Andrew. I'm really mad at you. You are forcing me to go back to the trail with my FS to do another time trial.


I'm not holding a gun to your head. My main criterion for my mountain bike was that I thought I'd enjoy riding it. When I killed my last fork and was considering a rigid, I was afraid I wouldn't enjoy the bike as much, not that I'd be slower. Although I think that would be true too.

Granted, if I rode a XC FS that I didn't enjoy but seemed to make me faster, I'd have a tough decision - I also enjoy racing. So far, I haven't been confronted with that...


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I'm not holding a gun to your head. My main criterion for my mountain bike was that I thought I'd enjoy riding it. When I killed my last fork and was considering a rigid, I was afraid I wouldn't enjoy the bike as much, not that I'd be slower. Although I think that would be true too.
> 
> Granted, if I rode a XC FS that I didn't enjoy but seemed to make me faster, I'd have a tough decision - I also enjoy racing. So far, I haven't been confronted with that...


Well...I guess you could say I'm kind of dreading the ride - not the fun descents, but the brutal climbs. Its not that climbing doesn't already suck for me on whatever bike I'm riding, its just that with the Schwinn FS, climbing REALLY sucks. Its fun to ride downhill though, but not so much on the flat part of the course. Anyway, at the end of the day, I'll be a better rider anyway, so might as well go for it. Not that I don't enjoy riding, but I don't enjoy it as much when I'm going full out, which is the case with the timed trials.

Another thing I was wondering whether or not could effect the results is how fresh my legs were on a particular day. When I did the timed trial on the Moto, you could say my legs were a little more fresh than they were last night, so that may have effected the time, and could tonight. Can you say Hawthrone Effect?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

LOL, I had to look it up, but that definitely fits into what I'm talking about.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

*Battle Scarred!*

Tonight's ride was interesting. I went into the ride a little nervous that I was going to bias my results with my own little Hawthorne Effect, which is basically biasing your results and find what you expect to find. Well, I did...sorta, but not in the way you might think.

Looking at my last post, I was a little concerned that my legs were shot, and after starting the ride, my legs did feel a little wobbly, so to speak. So, I'm thinking, great, here i am out to prove that I can beat last night's time on the Schwinn FS, but I'm actually going to finish with a slower time, because my legs feel weak. Well, it didn't turn out that way, and I think there are several reasons for that. I'll get to that in a minute.

One of the things I've been trying to work on is not using my brakes as much. I have a tendency to brake *UP HILL*, as I'm cornering, but down hill as well, which is to be expected. On that note, when coming around downhill corners, I've been trying not to brake at all unless I think I'll lose control of the bike. Well, for the second time in about two weeks, I've actually crashed when focusing on braking/not braking!

The first time was 10 days ago, on my Leader. On that particular ride, I wasn't so much trying not to brake, but I was trying to focus on braking less with my rear brake, and more with my front brake. As I was maneuvering in between two trees that are only slightly wider than my handlebars, I was focusing so much on using my front brake, that I neglected to notice that I was taking on the tree with my right shoulder! The tree won the fight, and knocked me off my bike! :eekster:

Well, now that my right shoulder is finally feeling better, on tonight's ride, when trying to zoom around a corner without using my brakes, I biffed it! :skep: At that point in time, once again, I was thinking so much for improving my time. For some reason I looked at my watch. At that moment in time, it was at 6:18, but I didn't want to stop the clock. Not wanting to lose any more time, I jumped on my bike, and kept going. Below is a rather unglamorous photo of me after the ride pointing at my battle scar - after all, if I don't post a photo, I really didn't crash!  And no, that's not a gang sign I'm flashing! I also injured the finger next to my pinky on my right hand, and later on in the ride, I realized I scraped my knee.

At first, I was a little shaken, but after a minute, I started to chill out. I started to develop a rhythm, and before I finished the first section of the trail, I knew I had beaten last night's time. As I raced across the road that marked the end of that section of the course, I looked at my stop watch, and I finished at 17:55, which was 32 seconds faster than last night's time. Still 24 seconds slower than the Moto, but not by much, especially considering the crash, although the crash may have motivated me a bit, so who knows how much it effected my time.

The second section of the course was a gradual climb, and I decided it would be best to use a different strategy than before, considering how much I hate climbing. Part of the reason I hate climbing so much is because I'm huffing and puffing so much and using so much energy that you would think my heart or lungs are going to explode.

If I'm on the Schwinn FS and use too much energy and try to force it, I get a lot of pedal bob, which slows me down. Tonight, I focused on relaxing up hill, but also developing a cadence. I also allowed myself to take several brakes - not stopping, but just taking a break from pedaling and coasting. If you use less energy early on in the ride, that means more energy later on in the ride, and its harder to burn yourself out that way. I also tried to focus on relaxing going downhill, although I almost crashed *AGAIN* on a turn. 

The result was that I finished that section of the course at 37:13 into the ride, which brakes down to 19:18. That's 1:11 faster than last night, and 1:43 faster than last night at the same point in the ride. Again, this is after crashing and not stopping the clock.

Once again, I started the ride later in the day, and it was starting to get dark by the time I started the third section of the course. However, because I saved energy by not pushing it so hard in the second section of the course, I felt a lot fresher than last night at that point in the course. I zipped through that section at 21:05, 59 seconds ahead of last night's ride.

Tonight I finished the course at 58:18, which is is 2:48 faster than last night's time, but still 1:44 slower than the Moto. Makes me wonder if I try and conserve energy on the Moto like I did tonight, will that make me faster or slower?

There are a couple of things that I did change from last night on the Schwinn FS, other than riding style. Before the ride, I slightly lowered the seat - maybe a millimeter or two, and also adjusted the angle of my shifters and brakes. Not sure how much of a difference that made, but it might have played a roll in the improved performance. Also, I wore my new pair of "Fox Reflex Gel S/F" gloves, which I think made a slight improvement in the hand numbness and pain I usually get. I got them yesterday and could have worn them on last night's ride, but because I didn't wear them on Monday night's ride with the Moto, I felt it would be best not to bias the results.

I will say that tonight's ride was a lot more fun that last night's. I did notice that by the time I started the third section of the trail, I was no longer huffing and puffing like I was before.

Anyway, with BRAN 5 weeks away (Bike Ride Across Nebraska), I wonder if I should put the mountain bikes away and focus on road riding again. I really don't want to injure myself before that ride, and while I think these time trials have helped me build up my endurance and speed for shorter rides, I need to spend more time in the saddle and do more long endurance rides again. As of now, I'm only at about 480 road training miles. My hope is that after I finish riding BRAN, I'll be a minute or so faster on the mountain bikes because of all of the road training, and will be ready to start racing off road in the 40+ "old fart" category. Time will tell...


----------



## rayrod354 (Apr 29, 2012)

Hey All, 

I'm new here and just found this forum by googling this bike.. I'm 6'0 tall and was wondering if this bike is good for me? I don't ride and am just looking for a good bike at a great price that I can start riding... Any suggestions? This bike or one in this price range...


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

rayrod354 said:


> Hey All,
> 
> I'm new here and just found this forum by googling this bike.. I'm 6'0 tall and was wondering if this bike is good for me? I don't ride and am just looking for a good bike at a great price that I can start riding... Any suggestions? This bike or one in this price range...


Its a great bike, but all sizes for the 600HT are now sold out. What kind of riding are you going to be doing? Off road, on road, or a little of both?


----------



## rayrod354 (Apr 29, 2012)

Yeah, I saw just noticed... Sucks, great looking bike. And I plan to start doing a little of both.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

rayrod354 said:


> Yeah, I saw just noticed... Sucks, great looking bike. And I plan to start doing a little of both.


Well, I was going to recommend a Windsor Cliff 4700 since they have road friendly tires...but they are sold out in your size. How technical is the off road stuff that you will be riding?

If you are going to be riding rugged off road terrain, you aren't going to find a much better deal than this one below, which still has the 20" in stock. However, it costs $595:

Save up to 60% off new Mountain Bikes - MTB - 2010 Motobecane Fantom Trail

If you can't afford that much and have to stay under $400, you can probably get away with the Dawes Haymaker 1200, which goes for $380, and still has the 21" black in stock, which should fit you:

Mountain Bikes - MTB - Dawes Haymaker 1200

These bikes have really aggressive tires, though, so they won't be all that great for on road riding. You can still ride them on the road, but they will just be slower than bikes with snoother tires - the hybrids will pass you! LOL


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Mountain Bikes - MTB - Windsor Ghost6700_08


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

nikojan said:


> Mountain Bikes - MTB - Windsor Ghost6700_08


Nice of you to make a recommendation, but that bike is sold out. Also, its a FS, which means it is going to be really slow on pavement.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

Sorry, didn't check to see if it was in stock. Just a heads up though, locking the rear shock and the fork plus the fact that its an aluminum frame means that it should fair just fine on pavement. Not as well as a hardtail obviously but really not too off.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

nikojan said:


> Sorry, didn't check to see if it was in stock. Just a heads up though, locking the rear shock and the fork plus the fact that its an aluminum frame means that it should fair just fine on pavement. Not as well as a hardtail obviously but really not too off.


Good point, but I didn't see any indication that you could lock out that particular rear suspension. Having said that, if someone is doing off and on-road riding, I'd stay away from a full suspension, even if it locks out. FS are great for off road, but aren't really designed for on road riding.


----------



## nikojan (Jun 18, 2011)

getagrip said:


> Good point, but I didn't see any indication that you could lock out that particular rear suspension. Having said that, if someone is doing off and on-road riding, I'd stay away from a full suspension, even if it locks out. FS are great for off road, but aren't really designed for on road riding.


Yup, completely agree.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

I haven't read all of this, but I bought a bike for a girl who was 5'8 or 5'9 and I thought a medium in a Giant would be perfect. She rode a medium and a small. She preferred the fit of the small because she wanted to sit more upright and this wasn't a racing geometry at all. It's best to let women ride bikes because I am positive I would have bought her a medium until she did some test riding.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

"Rod" said:


> I haven't read all of this, but I bought a bike for a girl who was 5'8 or 5'9 and I thought a medium in a Giant would be perfect. She rode a medium and a small. She preferred the fit of the small because she wanted to sit more upright and this wasn't a racing geometry at all. It's best to let women ride bikes because I am positive I would have bought her a medium until she did some test riding.


Just curious. What kind of Giant was it? It would kind of make sense with something like a Giant Roam, since you are dealing with a larger bike with 700C wheels. The small on a Roam is a 17", so that could conceivably work better for a girl, especially with the shorter top tube - a 19" medium might feel a bit big.

If it was a Revel or Boulder, you would be dealing with a 16", which, in my opinion, would be too small for someone 5'8 to 5'9, unless she wants to wing the bike all over the place.

When possible, its always better to have someone test ride a bike, but that's not possible with online purchases, unless there is a local store where they can test ride. Even then, someone who doesn't know a lot about bikes might choose a size that is too small. Last Summer I went on a bike ride with a girl who is 5'4". She was riding a 13" Trek, which is a size too small. She said she didn't notice it was too small until I mentioned it, then she was like, "wow, it does feel a bit small" and had to raise the seat to its highest point to fit her.

That just goes to show that emtion can somtimes override logic, particularely in females! Of course, sounds like she was thinking logically since she wanted the bike to be more upright. :thumbsup:


----------



## 6string718 (May 1, 2012)

Any word from OP about the bike purchase?


----------

