Discussion in 'General' started by dsjonboy, 7 May 2008.
I think he's looking for a mountain bike, not a bmx
Hmm, yeah your right, I think I was talking about another set of brakes, oh well.
firstly i believe easton 6061 is not normal 6061...there will be a difference.
secondly, im sorry mate but i would be utterly shocked if you could tell how the bike is going to handle by looking at those pictures without any angles. the obvious thing to say would be that the head angle on the GT is alot steeper...it's going to be a hell of a lot more uncomfortable to ride when sitting down as you'll feel like you're going uphill, plus in theory it would turn more like a wheelbarrow. also consider that the scott has a much shorter stem so it'll be miles more responsive, and the GT, well the stem on that is considerably longer by the look of it so it'll be even more of a wheelbarrow. the only thing the GT has going for it are the rims and possibly wheel hubs. but considering the wheels will be machine made anyway, don't expect any strength out of either of them.
overall I would go with the specialized, looks like it has the best built frame (albeit a bit of a lazy ride) and they are traditionally by far the best mass production bikes. (anyone remember the spesh bighit and demo8 and demo9?! epic examples of well made bikes...)
Ideal for what you want. and should be around the £200 mark as linked.
Well, I can tell because I have seen them in real life and I know the geomerty as I said! (not guessing from a pic, which you can still tell how slack/ steep the angles are) Wrong about the bike being uncomfortable. The more upright the ride is the more comfortable. My own GT is the opposite, but it is good for XC. FACT
How do you know what size of bike he's getting? No, you don't and therefore you don't know what length the stem will be either, and if it was too long he could specify a shorter one..
Easton is a brand name made in the Sates, I certainly couldn't notice the difference between it and anyother 6061. they are both made the same way with the same annealing process. It's still aircraft grade, but made in Tiwan. At the same time I was merly point out that 6061 in general is good. Ceratainly more durable than the 7005.
The spec on the GT is good for a budget and the frame is the best part. The specialized frame is poorer, but good. I know this as I have ridden it. LAZY? Don't you mean Wheelbarrow? It is over priced for what it is too in comparison.
Everyone at my work loves the GT and it look like well all the riding the one from Evans pretty soon!
My personal feelings on this are that discs are miles better than V-brakes. Except perhaps the very cheapest discs and the more expensive v-brakes - there's some overlap in certain conditions. Anyway, my point is that if you are going to go for V-brakes, make sure that the frame and wheels are 'disc-ready'. This makes upgrading a doddle which is definitely worthwhile. If you've ever been in the situation where you fancy upgrading to discs but you know this requires changing wheels and frame/fork, you'll know what I'm talking about.
You can certainly get some decent bikes for under £500 with hydro discs. Avid Juicy 3s seem to be cropping up all over the place - they're pretty nice for the money.
Re: Easton tubing. I know they do some clever stuff to it in the refinery process, and they make interesting tube profiles (compared to a bog-standard 6061 frame). In theory they ought to be able to make a stronger, livelier frame but I have no idea what real-world difference it makes. But then I don't think anyone here knows... It's certainly a lot more expensive and it's probably more of a name badge than anything else. But just because a frame is 6061, it's not necessarily 'good' and it's certainly not going to be on a par with a high-end alu frame (which probably WILL be Easton).
Yes Tomm, I certainly couldn't nocite the difference between my old easton 6061 and my new 6061. Allot of frames are now hyroformed may most makers. The GT and Scott mention are both using hydroformed tubes. I didn't realise that the refining process was different. I can certainly tell that my frame had been shot peend. Took allot to scratch it because of this.. which was nice!
You know, durability wise a top end frame will not last as long and get dented VERY easily as my litespeed did which was a 2.5 grand frame. (I could dent the tubes with my hand if I wanted. Nowhere near as durable as the GT which was allot cheaper and showed no signs of fatiuge thast I could tell. So, why spend so much money on a frame that will last less time, unless you are an elite rider and really need the edge of 500g weight advantage.
I have to say though I'd much prefer an Easton. Mine lasted over 10 years and, it still should be going strong because it was still as stiff as ever. I parcially put the down to it being a GT. They are all super stiff and from my experience stay stiff than even a cannondale which seem to loose stiffness after a few years hard racing sadly. Long live the triple triangle!
The dent thing largely depends on tube thickness though. Some road frames have a tube thickness of some silly amount like 0.2mm, I'd imagine a top-end XC bike is similar - no wonder they'll dent! If you want the fastest bike, there are a lot of compromises to be made...
The hydroforming is simply an economy of scale thing. The tooling costs an obscene amount, but then producing a frame from that costs no more than a simple extruded tube. So as long as the manufacturer can afford the tooling, they can make the frame. That's why a big manufacturer like GT can use a hydroformed tube on a £250 bike, whereas for a trials company (by default, a very small company compared to GT), you'll pay £999 for their hydroformed frame.
Talking about my old GT, my bro rang me up and said he doesn't use the bike anymore, so I can have it, quality!
Separate names with a comma.