DescentBB

I'm considering getting myself a decent Mountain Bike in the near future so I'm looking for some input on what I should consider.

Not being into the sport I did a little poking around and saw that what I knew about mountain bikes are so outdated like a "XT".

My initial thoughts were to go full suspension and disc brakes, but then again I'm going to be on a little bit of a budget.

I'm not planning to participate in any events or anything. For me it is more recreational and a form of "stress reliving". The main type of road I'm considering is dirt to totally off-road. In short the bike should be able to go "anywhere". Another thing I considered or should be considered is that I have all ready broken 2 forks on my current bike due to jumping pavements ect. and roughing out some rugged terrain. Things I learned couldn't be done in an extreme way with a standard mountain bike (without breaking something that is).

My current bike is a little hybrid of two bikes I combined (still very old and standard). 24 Speed, V-brakes, no suspension, about 5 years old.

I like to go fast on road/off-road, to take jumps, push the limits a bit to the extreme (nothing serious though) and to travel long distances at times (about 20 - 30 km).

So for a newbie to this type of sport, what should I consider and know when deciding on what to buy? Budget can be overcome if it is worth spending the extra $$.

I was quite happy with my GT Aggressor 3.0... 24-speed, V-brakes, no suspension. Then it got stolen while I was at work.

Anyway, the Aggressor 2005's look really nice, for basic standard equipment. Solid purchase for $300, I must say.

Man I saw a mtn bike at the shop that had those disk brakes on it and ... well ... all I can say is that I can't wait till they are common on street bikes. They are awesome from what I hear.

It's been a while since I've been in a bike shop, but I used to be pretty into it. What kind of budget are you working with? If you're looking at under $1500, I'd go without full suspension. Any full suspension below that price point probably isn't worth it. If you do want to go full suspension, and have the money, you'll want to do some research before you buy, because not all rear suspensions are created equal. Full suspension is great for downhill and some single-track, but if you're going to be doing a lot of pedaling you may want to go with a hard-tail. They're simply more efficient at transferring power from pedal to ground.

No matter what, you'll want disc brakes. For components, I'd look for Shimano Deore LX or above (XT, XTR).

I paid $1500 for my Klein hardtail four years ago. It was a toss up between that and a GT full suspension. The Klein had better components, and that was the deciding factor for me. I used to race BMX, so I enjoy bombing down the odd trail. Even though the Klein is pretty stiff, and beats me on washboard, I don't regret getting the hardtail.

I bought a Trek 4500 last year and I like it. Would of preferred it not being full suspension but couldn't afford it. Also, disc brakes are the way to go for downhill stuff.

I ride like you like too ride and I would suggest a Haro VGF(V-3). Solid bike, from it's 28-speed Deore Shimano shifter down to it's ProMax cantilevers with KMB kool stop pads. Runnin' a full suspension is indeed the way to go if you can stand the loss in acceleration due to the (rear) shock. Personally, I ride fast everywhere I go and thus need the "instant" gratification of 'move now!' speed so I opted out of the full suspension and just run a solid V-gusset frame with Rox Shox on the front. Aftermarket parts such as a nice gel seat, cats-eye speedo and some nice Kenda rubber on the Hoopster alloy wheels gets me anywhere fast


Oh! and avoid the disc brakes until your a proffesional. It's an over-priced option that just is'nt practical for riders like us.

I personally ride the Fisher Opie. I got it for $600 Canadian, after taxes and with a couple upgrades, and it's solid. The components kind of suck, but the frame is great. It's the same frame as the best of that line, only with different components. I've subjected it to about a month of urban trials riding so far, and beyond the expected wear (and bad trials geometry) it's not given me a single problem. The downside is it's a slow bike, not really suited for hauling ass on singletrack. Check out the Kingfisher by the same company if you want dual suspension (which I wouldn't recommend unless you plan to take really big hits and extremely rough terrain).

If pedaling fast (and I say pedaling to distinguish between that and just plain going fast, i.e. downhilling) is more important than big drops/jumps, I'd suggest a aggressive-cross country type bike. It's a speed-oriented bike with some ruggedness to it, rather than a rock-solid bike. I personally can't think of a bike that'd pedal quickly and take big hits; there's a bit of a tradeoff there.

I got a Giant Iguana with Disc Brakes and 24 Speed (front shocks).
Try paying in Cash, the guy might go down a bit. I got mine for 500

From what I hear, Trek makes very nice mountain bikes. I just have a several-year-old dirt-trail 24-speed with a cromoly frame and no suspension, and though I've never really done any trail riding, I've always liked it. (My lazy *** hasn't even ridden it in about three years or so, but I liked it when I actually did. )

I'm actually looking into getting one myself. I've been checking eBay, and notice all the different sizes. Are the sizes based on function or the size of the person riding it? I presume the latter, which I am a pretty big dood: 6'4 220 pounds, so should I go with the largest frame and rim size?

"Oh! and avoid the disc brakes until your a proffesional."

No Way! If you're considering getting a new bike w/o disc brakes, stop. Save your money up for another month, and get one with disc's. They are superior in nearly every way to regular brakes. There's a reason why more and more bikes are coming with them stock.

*edit - BigSlide, go down to a bike shop, stradle a bike, and lift it up til it hits your crotch. You should have a few inches between the tires and the ground.(this only really works on frame with a straight top tube) My guess is you'll need a 20-21 in frame.

Basically if you're 5' 10" or taller you need at least a 21" frame. I'm 6' even and I needed to get a 23" frame. Your specific size will also depend on how much of your height is in your legs.

Don't go oversize though because your bike will begin to feel out of control.

The only problem I have experienced with Disc Brakes is that they are slightly more touchy, so my rear tire is a bit more worn.

DCrazy, I worked in a bike shop for 2 years building and selling bikes.(granted, this was 15 years ago) I think you're a little off on the sizing. Basically, you want enough clearance between the top tube and your crotch so that if you jump off the pedals to a standing/stradle position, you'll have room for the jewels. After that, if you need extra height so that your knees aren't bent too much while pedaling, you raise the seat. I'm 5'10", and a 21" frame would almost be dangerous for me, since I would barely clear the top tube while stradling the frame. (my bike is 18.5, and I have maybe 3 or 4 inches of clearance) Especially these days, when many bikes have higher ground clearance (the measurement for the frame starts at the center of the bottom bracket, which would be higher on a bike with greater ground clearance. It ends at the top of the seat tube.) For someone 6'4", I think a 21" frame would be a good starting point.

What you're shooting for when sizing is safety. Thenior is exactly right, a bike that is too big is harder to control than a bike that is too small. *Especially* on single-track and downhill trails. (smaller bike is easier to throw weight around) Always err on the side of smaller. You can always make a smaller bike feel bigger by raising the seat, getting a longer stem, or even raiser handle bars.

Of course, bikes come in all shapes these days. One manufacturers 21" frame could have a top tube much lower than another manufacturers 21" frame.

My advice would be to go to a bike shop, find a couple bikes you like, find the appropriate size, and test ride them. Then look on ebay for the same bike/size.

mmm... got 3 grand?
http://www.santacruzbicycles.com/bicycles/blur.php

I have a Specialized. They are the only respectable bike where I live. I mountain bike quite a bit and have put this thing through as much punishment (extreme dirt downhill, jumps, etc) as possible, and it still works great. I personally like V-brakes more than disk brakes because they are easier to lock up for a little skidding fun. Also, unless you are gonna need it, I would go for a hardtail. Full suspension cancels some of your motion from the pedals and you get less power for your pedal. I just like to feel sure knowing exactly where the back of my bike is going to be. Plus, I have jumped alot on both full suspension and hardtail suspension bikes on 2-3 foot of air to flat ground, and believe that the slightly softer impact with the full suspension is not worth the conditions above. I have a Specialized Rockhopper, about 600 American. It's got a light front shock, but is otherwise well balanced. I would recommend it for the situation you are describing. Also, since there are some divided opinions about brakes, take some test rides on bikes with V and bikes with disk brakes, and see what you like for yourself.

Sizing also depends greatly on the type of bike and the use. I ride a 53cm road bike, which is about 21"... my mountain bike is 16.5", which is too small for general riding purposes, but great for more demanding riding where I need to move around on the bike a lot.

I agree with Vander on the disc brakes. I only know of one situation where disc brakes are bad, and that's trials riding, where it's quite possible to snap the caliper mount tabs right off the seat stays. Any other kind of riding, and disc brakes are great. Very good modulation and stopping power, and you don't have to worry about whether or not your brakes are going to work when it's raining or you just rode through some mud.