UTAH (and Surrounding Areas) BS Thread

I pulled that model up online, and if it has shifting capability (derailleur) on both front and back, make sure they both smoothly. Front derailleurs are notorious for being finnicky if they get bent/damaged and are a real pain in the ass. Easy to check function though, just run it through all the gears. I'd recommend a once up and down, then try shifting back and forth in irregular intervals, etc to test how it'd pedal on trail.

The rest looks decent for a used bike in that range. I don't see anything that jumps out at me in the pics or on the spec sheet as being a problem.

 

If it’s Legacy Offroad and Joel is teaching, then yes, it’s good.

 

excuse my ignorance here. So if it’s front and rear you can change the gears of both front and rear? Is that totally necessary? What’s the benefits? Just seems strange to me.

 

Yes, you're correct. Typically you'll have 7-10 gears in the rear on the cassette and 2 or 3 different size chainrings on the front. Hard to see in your above screenshot which it might be, or if it's a "1x" pronounced "1 by" aka 1 ring in front. It looks like Specialized lists it as 2x8 if I have the right one pulled up.

The multiple front and rear gears is the "old" (not "bad" though) way of doing wide-range shifting to get you super easy pedaling (for steep uphill) to super-efficient (for really fast flat-downhill). Newer bikes are basically all 1x with a fixed front ring, but a much bigger (and more) spread of gears in the rear. So instead of a 2x10 or 3x7 or something, newer bikes today are pretty much all 1x11 or 1x12 that get you essentially the same thing. The big reasons for the change were ease of maintenance and to some degree weight savings. plus I'm sure it's cheaper to equip for the company so better profit margins.

In terms of "necessity", there's always single speed to prove you don't NEED gears, but most sane people prefer them over pushing your bike up a fair amount of hills. The reason for the multiple chainrings is because the dimensions of the frame basically didn't allow for the manufacturers to cram a big cassette into the rear and it was much easier to fit a few extra chainrings in the front. Now the manufacturing capability is there, and bike frames have been made wider to fit larger cassettes and a litany of other improvements, which arguing the "necessity" of is a favorite pastime for MTBers.

 

front and rear...helps to get you wide gear ratios.
remember when people used to talk about "20 speed" or "30 speed"?
yeah...that's not done with 30 gears int eh bak and 1 gear in the front. the front gear is usually 2 (sometimes 3) and then the back is 10 gears so you can get 20 or 30 speeds.

These days, everyone uses 1 in the front 12 in the back. 1x12. but that's MODERN bikes and generally more pricey. for that pricepoint, 2x or 3x are vastly more common. (easier to manufacture and distribute). nothing inherently wrong but that does mean you'll be paying attention to which gear your front AND rear are in.

 

LOL, a coworker engineering buddy and I tried to fabri-cobble a 2x12 Super-Eagle with double derailleurs to suck up the chainslack. What a pain in the dick that was and ultimately failed. Also it was pointless AF. You'd be able to pedal up walls, but so slowly you'd prob tip over first and take you an hour to pedal 100 yards.

 

Thank you very much for the explanation guys!

so say if I wanted to convert it to just 1 up front is that possible, or would it be an absolute whore of a job?

 

depends on the bike design. if it's new enough, you can but it's going to cost you another 500...cassette is like 200-300+, derailleur is another 100+, shifter is 50ish. so...usually not worth it at that price point

 

LOL. oh man. 2x12...i mean, you could do it with one of the old shifters where it wasn't indexed/toggled. but yeah, it probably wasn't worth your time. lolol.

 

I bet it would be pretty doable with basic skills. My friend has a smiliar age rock hopper comp. It came as a 1x drivetrain, which means they can go to 1x. I've heard the older 2-3x7-9 are more common on old or cheaper bikes. The logic I was told is 21 gears (3x7) sounds like a better value than a 1x12 so for people who don't know a ton yeah it sounds like a deal. I have a 1x but ride in wisconsin mostly. I don't use the full 1x12 range very often. If there's a picture of the bikes right side you might be able to visually see if its a 1x or a 2/3x front.

Ps my friend really likes his bike, and suits him well for a beginner to intermediate. He is also 6'4' so there weren't a lot of bikes in his price point for his size

 

So I can spend 1k I just don’t want too since I’m just getting my foot in the door.
But around that price range what would be good brands to check out?

 

Right on. Talked to Joel this morning and got signed up for the 29th. Looking forward to it. I appreciate your input.

In other Utah BS: Took this over Utah Lake on approach to Provo Airport last night. This state never ceases to amaze.

 

probably stick to the big brand names
trek, specialized, giant, cannondale, scott. Might find somethign from Marin at that price point new.

if you're looking used, any of the above but I would also probably add in norco, kona, commencal, canyon.

here's 2 simple filters on pinkbike to hel pyou:
xc cateogry:
https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/li...11.8882&distance=600&category=75&reartravel=1
trail category:
https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/li...1.8882&distance=600&category=102&reartravel=1

 

You could go used, but I think the frame might be a limiting factor, in which case, you'd prob get a 1x8 with a less than ideal gear range.

 

What @ginseng27 said. You'll be getter a better spec bike for the money, but it'll have the same name on the frame.

There was a Rocky Mountain Growler hardtail for $1k used on KSL that was compelling when I looked the other day.

 

Should I do my best to stay away from older bikes given my knowledge is limited for the time being?
if I up my budget stay within a bike say 3yrs old or less?

I’m finding it tough finding the right size since I’m 6’3” & 200lbs. I figure I need a large or XL depending on the brand. I’ve read 29” wheels are a bit easier to get the hang of.

given all my injuries I don’t wanna go crazy. Gotta start thinking about my safety nowadays.

 

stick to 29'ers for your height and build without question. if you stick to a bike that's been built within the past 3ish years, you'll totally be fine. hardtails are also very hard to mess up. I would check those links for anyone getting rid of bikes at that sizing. they might be tough to find but when youf ind it, you can find a good bike for a great price becuase they're just trying to get rid of it.

 

Sounds good.

Thank you again for all the help everyone!

 

no worries dude! feel free to reach out for more questions or come visit the biking thread!

 

Jeez