BF2S Forums Buying a Mountain Bike

You're gonna have people tell you "That's not enough to get you a good bike", but anything from Halfords should do you fine for simple travel. Maybe get a warranty or some shit incase something goes wrong. The bike I got from there for £150 had all sorts of problems with the gears, but I kept getting them to fix it until it was finally ridable, so they're far from great bikes.

FFLink wrote:

You're gonna have people tell you "That's not enough to get you a good bike", but anything from Halfords should do you fine for simple travel. Maybe get a warranty or some shit incase something goes wrong. The bike I got from there for £150 had all sorts of problems with the gears, but I kept getting them to fix it until it was finally ridable, so they're far from great bikes.

Thanks. So if something goes wrong, will halfords just fix it for free? atleast for the first year or however long the warranty is.

teek22 wrote:

FFLink wrote:

You're gonna have people tell you "That's not enough to get you a good bike", but anything from Halfords should do you fine for simple travel. Maybe get a warranty or some shit incase something goes wrong. The bike I got from there for £150 had all sorts of problems with the gears, but I kept getting them to fix it until it was finally ridable, so they're far from great bikes.

Thanks. So if something goes wrong, will halfords just fix it for free? atleast for the first year or however long the warranty is.

Yeah, standard warranty with mine was 30 days, then you can pay for more, I'd assume, and I doubt they'd charge much for it, maybe just a fiver.

One more thing. From the two I have posted there is a £40 difference. Is there any benefit in getting the more expensive one apart from an extra 3 gears?

It looks as though it's better quality, and I would assume lighter. I'm far from an expert, but it seems better.

Also, I think the black one comes with a motherfucking bell.

Go for that, IMO.

If you're going to be using it primarily as a mode of transport you'd probably be better with a racing bike, you can go faster for less effort (more practical gear ratios, much less tyre drag), which means it's easier to get around.

Bertster7 wrote:

If you're going to be using it primarily as a mode of transport you'd probably be better with a racing bike, you can go faster for less effort (more practical gear ratios, much less tyre drag), which means it's easier to get around.

but you will look like a faggot.

do what gravydan said though, some cheap bikes have terrible saddles.

xxCaptainBlackxx wrote:

This one looks better....

http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stor … yId_165499

Because it has dual suspension and disc brakes, right? While that's good, you'll never get a good full squish mountain bike for this little money. Looking at the actual components, it's all very low end. Low performing, hard to tune/repair, etc.

I'm going to say what FF said someone would; You're not going to get a reliable off road bike on this budget. A solid road bike could be found, and one of the most important things to look for in that is a proper fit which means going down to the store and having someone help you find the right size frame, stem, bars, etc.

liquidat0r wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If you're going to be using it primarily as a mode of transport you'd probably be better with a racing bike, you can go faster for less effort (more practical gear ratios, much less tyre drag), which means it's easier to get around.

I use my mountain bike mainly for transport too, around and from uni. Having a mountain bike means I can hop up curbs, cycle down stairs, and other general idiocy to avoid traffic and people. Glad I don't have a road bike.

tbh I don't know much about it, but I live with my brother who is obsessed with bikes. He is adamant that racing bikes are way, way better for getting about quickly than mountain bikes. He does a 15 mile commute each day (through London) and on his racing bike he maintains an average speed of nearly 30mph on his racing bike - on his mountain bike it's way lower (almost half that). I remember arguing that it can't be that much faster, but he showed me.

Admitedly racing bikes are way more expensive.

You ain't going to get a decent mountain bike for $150. If you want a good mountain bike, you better be able to spend $700 or more.

Well I am just looking for a mountain bike to get me from A to B. No terain shizzle, apart from the riding through parks which I am sure this will cope with. So I think I will probably go down to halford on Monday and get the £180 one I posted.

As for a Road bike, I think I will give it a miss.

thanks for the info peeps.

Go on craigslist, get a used 70s - 80s road bike. Seriously. It's probably cheaper than a new 'mountain bike', and it will last you longer, provided it's in good shape. Unless you are riding offroad frequently, a mountain bike is completely unnecessary and a pain to ride on the streets. Mountain bikes marketed for the streets are terrible byproducts of the mountain bike craze of the late 80's and early 90's. A lot like enormous SUV's. You get what you pay for with bicycles, and anything in your price range is essentially a 'department store' bicycle and will start falling apart instantly, most likely. Those things average ~ 90 miles from the store to the junkheap. Buy used.

If you want to enjoy your ride, find an old Raleigh, Peugeot, etc. 10-12 speed. Hell, you probably know someone who has had one hanging from their rafters for a decade. Ask around, you wont regret it.