Which bike is best?

[Stephen Reid]

Hi,

I haven't had a bike for about ten years now and am looking to get one to start using for some general riding (some off road, some on road). I have narrowed it down to three bikes and was wondering which you think is the best value? You can click the bikes to see their specs.

Carrera Kraken - from Halfords, I can get this bike for £200 instead of £350 thorugh my employer.

Giant Yukon - from Cyclesports for £237.

Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 2005 - from De Ver Cycles for £300.


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Stephen

[Richard]

Stephen Reid wrote:

> I haven't had a bike for about ten years now and am looking to get one
> to start using for some general riding (some off road, some on road).

On-road, all of the bikes you mention (with those specs) will be slow,
due to the knobbly tires, and wet and muddy, due to the lack of
mudguards. If that suits you, that's fine, but you might want to
consider slicks and mudguards.

R.

[vernon levy]

"Stephen Reid" > wrote in message ...
Hi,

I haven't had a bike for about ten years now and am looking to get one to start using for some general riding (some off road, some on road). I have narrowed it down to three bikes and was wondering which you think is the best value? You can click the bikes to see their specs.

Carrera Kraken - from Halfords, I can get this bike for £200 instead of £350 thorugh my employer.

Giant Yukon - from Cyclesports for £237.

Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 2005 - from De Ver Cycles for £300.

I have had a Carrera Kraken and was delighted with it. It has had good reviews in its two versions that i know of. There is possibly an issue with the bottom bracket being cup and bearing rather than a sealed cartridge unit and it might be worthwhile establishing if the current model uses a cartridge bottom bracket.

None of the listed bikes are ideal for road riding. The knobblies fitted to the Kraken are very draggy on the road and I suspect that the other bikes will be similarly shod. You need to consider if your riding is going to be mainly on the road and tow paths/sustrans routes or truly off-road and perhaps consider bikes from the Dawes and Ridgeback ranges that are better suited to the road but can cope with light off road use.

[Ride-A-Lot]

Stephen Reid wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't had a bike for about ten years now and am looking to get one
> to start using for some general riding (some off road, some on road). I
> have narrowed it down to three bikes and was wondering which you think
> is the best value? You can click the bikes to see their specs.
>
> Carrera Kraken
> <http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10151&productId=207937&categoryId=31385> -
> from Halfords, I can get this bike for £200 instead of £350 thorugh my
> employer.
>
> Giant Yukon
> <http://www.cyclesportsuk.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=123> - from
> Cyclesports for £237.
>
> Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 2005
> <http://shop.devercycles.co.uk/?6/ASMbT8PDkAxPJ50LYkI7hDieMyU/XoJWIVZE6d+5mcWEcVf7XHJmZhFsJIppOHEtKz8wmYuQ2kOlG7 kdEbyQ==> -
> from De Ver Cycles for £300.
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your advice.
>
> Stephen
>
>

Well I have a blue bike and it's really slow. So, I would get the red
one because its the fastest!









....get the Spec - adequate first timer bike.


--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

[Simon Brooke]

in message >,
Stephen Reid ') wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I haven't had a bike for about ten years now and am looking to get one
> to start using for some general riding (some off road, some on road).
> I have narrowed it down to three bikes and was wondering which you
> think is the best value? You can click the bikes to see their specs.

No, we can't.

> Carrera Kraken - from Halfords, I can get this bike for £200 instead of
> £350 thorugh my employer.

H'mmmm... pig in a poke. Halfords bikes range from cheap'n'cheerful to
cheap'n'nasty. If this year's spec still includes Deore transmission,
that's significantly better than anything else you've selected, but the
forks and brakes are poor.

> Giant Yukon - from Cyclesports for £237.

Crap fork, poor brakes, poor quality transmission, quite good tyres for
off-road use.

> Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 2005 - from De Ver Cycles for £300.

Poor fork, reasonable brakes, poor quality transmission

> Thanks in advance for your advice.

All the bikes you've picked are mountain bikes built up with poor
quality, high feature kit. On road, mountain bikes are horribly
inefficient - they aren't designed for it and they aren't good at it.
Off road, cheap components don't cut it - they will get trashed very
quickly.

Mechanical disk brakes may look like hydraulic disk brakes but they don't
work like hydraulic disk brakes - so you get all the disadvantages of
disk brakes without the advantages. Similarly, from the outside you
can't tell the difference between air sprung forks and elastomer forks,
and you can't tell the difference between a butted frame and a plain
gauge one. They look the same, but they don't work the same.

None of these bikes are any good for riding on the road, and none of them
are much good for riding on anything serious off road.

You can't get all the latest bling features, and reasonable quality, for
the money you're prepared to spend. You'd be better to look at something
with V brakes, not disk brakes, with no suspension, and with better
transmission.

The Giant FCR3 is a lot better for what you want than anything you've
listed: as good or better frame, much better forks, much better
transmission, much better brakes, road geometry and tyres which will be
vastly better on road while being able to cope with some off-road use.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; how did we conclude that a ****ing cartoon mouse is deserving
;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14?
-- user 'Tackhead', in /. discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02

[Erik Sandblom]

i artikel , skrev Simon
Brooke på den 06-04-17 21.54:

> The Giant FCR3 is a lot better for what you want than anything you've
> listed: as good or better frame, much better forks, much better
> transmission, much better brakes, road geometry and tyres which will be
> vastly better on road while being able to cope with some off-road use.


How is the transmission different and why is it better? Is it more
efficient?

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Erik Sandblom
') wrote:

> i artikel , skrev Simon
> Brooke på den 06-04-17 21.54:
>
>> The Giant FCR3 is a lot better for what you want than anything you've
>> listed: as good or better frame, much better forks, much better
>> transmission, much better brakes, road geometry and tyres which will
>> be vastly better on road while being able to cope with some off-road
>> use.
>
> How is the transmission different and why is it better? Is it more
> efficient?

Errr... when I wrote that I thought the Giant FCR3 had SRAM X-7
derailleurs, which are streets ahead of the low end Shimano ones. I
thought this because it's advertised as such on this page:
http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s20p11042
However, on Giant's own page on the bike:
http://www.giantbicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2007&model=10351
it says it has Shimano Sora/440 derailleurs, which are cheap'n'nasty. The
bike in the /photo/ on the AW Cycles page has a Sora rear derailleur,
but I'd read the specification.

If you can get an FCR3 as advertised by AW Cycles with the SRAM X-7
transmission, it's better because the derailleurs as better engineered,
with better pivots. Consequently they will shift more accurately and
will keep shifting accurately longer, with fewer mis-shifts and ghost
shifts. The 1:1 actuation ratio on the SRAM means that adjustment is
less sensitive, anyway, which seeing the pantograph design is less
sloppy and thus has less hysteresis means that you get a double benefit.
Overall the SRAM mech design is just better than the Shimano.
Furthermore, X-7 is mid-level in SRAM's range, whereas Acera and Alivio
(and Sora) are fairly low-end groupsets. An X-7 rear mech, retail, is
£45; a Sora, £17.

Generally, however, the FCR3 (and other road-oriented hybrids) have road
oriented gearing, which is to say higher, closer ratios than mountain
bikes, more suited to the demands of road riding; so even if the bike
does have the Sora/440 derailleurs that Giant says it has, it still
has /slightly/ better transmission than the cheap mountain bikes the OP
suggested.


--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from Â*religiousÂ*conviction." Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*--Â*Pascal

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Erik Sandblom
> ') wrote:
>
>> i artikel , skrev
>> Simon Brooke på den 06-04-17 21.54:
>>
>>> The Giant FCR3 is a lot better for what you want than anything
>>> you've listed: as good or better frame, much better forks, much
>>> better transmission, much better brakes, road geometry and tyres
>>> which will be vastly better on road while being able to cope with
>>> some off-road use.
>>
>> How is the transmission different and why is it better? Is it more
>> efficient?
>
> Errr... when I wrote that I thought the Giant FCR3 had SRAM X-7
> derailleurs, which are streets ahead of the low end Shimano ones. I
> thought this because it's advertised as such on this page:
> http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s20p11042
> However, on Giant's own page on the bike:
> http://www.giantbicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2007&model=10351
> it says it has Shimano Sora/440 derailleurs, which are cheap'n'nasty.
> The bike in the /photo/ on the AW Cycles page has a Sora rear
> derailleur, but I'd read the specification.
>
> If you can get an FCR3 as advertised by AW Cycles with the SRAM X-7
> transmission, it's better because the derailleurs as better
> engineered, with better pivots. Consequently they will shift more
> accurately and will keep shifting accurately longer, with fewer
> mis-shifts and ghost shifts. The 1:1 actuation ratio on the SRAM
> means that adjustment is less sensitive, anyway, which seeing the
> pantograph design is less sloppy and thus has less hysteresis means
> that you get a double benefit. Overall the SRAM mech design is just
> better than the Shimano. Furthermore, X-7 is mid-level in SRAM's
> range, whereas Acera and Alivio (and Sora) are fairly low-end
> groupsets. An X-7 rear mech, retail, is £45; a Sora, £17.
>
> Generally, however, the FCR3 (and other road-oriented hybrids) have
> road oriented gearing, which is to say higher, closer ratios than
> mountain bikes, more suited to the demands of road riding; so even if
> the bike does have the Sora/440 derailleurs that Giant says it has,
> it still
> has /slightly/ better transmission than the cheap mountain bikes the
> OP suggested.

Why stop there? Uh, duh, Campy Record on everything! Why would you even
suggest looking at anything else?!?!
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[Ib]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> Errr... when I wrote that I thought the Giant FCR3 had SRAM X-7
> derailleurs, which are streets ahead of the low end Shimano ones. I
> thought this because it's advertised as such on this page:
> http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s20p11042
> However, on Giant's own page on the bike:
> http://www.giantbicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2007&model=10351
> it says it has Shimano Sora/440 derailleurs, which are cheap'n'nasty. The
> bike in the /photo/ on the AW Cycles page has a Sora rear derailleur,
> but I'd read the specification.
>
> If you can get an FCR3 as advertised by AW Cycles with the SRAM X-7
> transmission, it's better because the derailleurs as better engineered,
> with better pivots.

Think I know what they've done. That's the description for the 2005 FCR3:
http://www.giantbicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2006&model=10287
with carbon fork et all, RRP £550. In the 2005 range there was an FCR4
for £350 with a much more disappointing spec.

Nice bikes though.

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Ib wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Errr... when I wrote that I thought the Giant FCR3 had SRAM X-7
>> derailleurs, which are streets ahead of the low end Shimano ones. I
>> thought this because it's advertised as such on this page:
>> http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s20p11042
>> However, on Giant's own page on the bike:
>> http://www.giantbicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2007&model=10351
>> it says it has Shimano Sora/440 derailleurs, which are
>> cheap'n'nasty. The bike in the /photo/ on the AW Cycles page has a
>> Sora rear derailleur, but I'd read the specification.
>>
>> If you can get an FCR3 as advertised by AW Cycles with the SRAM X-7
>> transmission, it's better because the derailleurs as better
>> engineered, with better pivots.
>
> Think I know what they've done. That's the description for the 2005
> FCR3:
> http://www.giantbicycles.com/uk/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2006&model=10287
> with carbon fork et all, RRP £550. In the 2005 range there was an
> FCR4 for £350 with a much more disappointing spec.
> Nice bikes though.

They are essentially OCRs with canti mounts and flat bars/controls. The
tubing is exactly the same.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

[Doki]

"Stephen Reid" > wrote in message
...

> Carrera Kraken - from Halfords, I can get this bike for £200 instead of
> £350 thorugh my employer.
> Giant Yukon - from Cyclesports for £237.
> Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 2005 - from De Ver Cycles for £300.

Out of the three, I'd have the Giant or the Specialized. If I were picking a
bike for £300, I'd probably look elsewhere. I'd avoid mechanical disk brakes
and go for V brakes - at least Deore or Avids. The Giant I had lasted pretty
well, but the bottom bracket, hubs and headset all died fairly sharpish
(similar priced bike). And the chainrings were riveted to the crankset. The
end result of all that is that the bike soon costs you as much as it cost to
buy in repairs.

In short, I'd go for as much Shimano Deore stuff as you can get in the
drivetrain - probably not a lot, but a bit's better than none. P'raps have a
look at the Edinburgh Cycles website, they do some half decent started MTBs
under the revolution name. Suspension forks at this price aren't great but
they do work a bit - decent forks retail at £100 upwards, so you're not
going to find them on cheap bikes. Same goes for a pair of good hydraulic
disk brakes. It really does depend on what you want to do - if you'll be up
in the peak district every weekend, you'll replace lots of bits on the bike.
If you go cycling on gentler paths, it'll last a lot better, but you'd
probably be better off with a more town / hybrid orientated bike as it'll
roll better.

[David Martin]

Doki wrote:
> Same goes for a pair of good hydraulic
> disk brakes.
Giant Terrago has hydraulic discs and is GBP 400. Seemed quite
reasonable for the price.

I personally look on an off the shelf bike as a starting point and
would rapidly swap cranks (for shorter ones), saddle, add a rack,
possibly other drivetrain bits too.

...d

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>, David
Martin ') wrote:

>
> Doki wrote:
>> Same goes for a pair of good hydraulic
>> disk brakes.
> Giant Terrago has hydraulic discs and is GBP 400. Seemed quite
> reasonable for the price.
>
> I personally look on an off the shelf bike as a starting point and
> would rapidly swap cranks (for shorter ones), saddle, add a rack,
> possibly other drivetrain bits too.

Yup, I agree. But it makes sense to start with a bike that's sufficiently
reasonably set up that you need to swap as little as possible. Swapping
stuff quickly gets expensive.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party is now dead. The corpse may still be
twitching, but resurrection is not an option - unless Satan
chucks them out of Hell as too objectionable even for him.

[Doki]

"David Martin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Doki wrote:
>> Same goes for a pair of good hydraulic
>> disk brakes.
> Giant Terrago has hydraulic discs and is GBP 400. Seemed quite
> reasonable for the price.
>
> I personally look on an off the shelf bike as a starting point and
> would rapidly swap cranks (for shorter ones), saddle, add a rack,
> possibly other drivetrain bits too.

I wouldn't. The cost of a swapped bit is much less than the cost of getting
a bike with the bit you want on it as the bike maker's buying stuff trade.
For a £300 bike, I wouldn't even bother thinking about hydraulic or cable
disks. You can get along perfectly fine with V-brakes, unless you do a lot
of riding in places where the grit eats the pad in a couple of hours.

[David Martin]

Doki wrote:
> "David Martin" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Doki wrote:
> >> Same goes for a pair of good hydraulic
> >> disk brakes.
> > Giant Terrago has hydraulic discs and is GBP 400. Seemed quite
> > reasonable for the price.
> >
> > I personally look on an off the shelf bike as a starting point and
> > would rapidly swap cranks (for shorter ones), saddle, add a rack,
> > possibly other drivetrain bits too.
>
> I wouldn't. The cost of a swapped bit is much less than the cost of getting
> a bike with the bit you want on it as the bike maker's buying stuff trade.

It is somewhat difficult to find any bike off the shelf in my size with
165mm cranks, especially an MTB. It is also a matter of choice for the
various components that one likes. Typically the headline spec will not
necessarily optimise the bits you want optimised,

> For a £300 bike, I wouldn't even bother thinking about hydraulic or cable
> disks. You can get along perfectly fine with V-brakes, unless you do a lot
> of riding in places where the grit eats the pad in a couple of hours.

My 300 quid bike now has an XT rear changer, XT rear mech, LX hubs,
Avid Arch Rival front brake, deore V rear, Brooks saddle, Nokian AWS
tyres, a cheap triple chainset in the right size, Deore front changer,
and a Klickfix bar bag mount. Plus a few other miscellaneous bits.

When I bought the bike I chose it based on the frame, figuring
everything else could get changed as and when. It has gone through (ie
I have replaced) three chainsets, two sets of cantis, half a set of V
brakes, one set of levers, 4 rear mechs, the worst of which lasted only
one week, 1 front mech, two sets of shifters, two sets of pedals
(heading for the third), one set of wheels,two bottom brackets, one set
of mudguards and one rack. I have rebuilt the forks (RST231 cheap
springy ones) a couple of times but they have now rusted solid. I have
lost count of the number of cables, brake blocks, chains and cassettes
that have beeen and gone. The handlebars and stem are now seized into
the top of the forks, fortunately the headset is still OK. It has done
probably 20-25K miles in its time.

...d

[[email protected]]

color you say no way. I got a yellow bike I know thats faster then any
red one. Color is in the eye of the beholder.

[[email protected]]

The best solution is GIANT IGUANA with RS Duke xc fork.

[David Martin]

wrote:
> The best solution is GIANT IGUANA with RS Duke xc fork.

That will take my trailer hitch, child seat and front panniers?

And mudguards?

...d

[Richard]

David Martin wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>The best solution is GIANT IGUANA with RS Duke xc fork.
>
>
> That will take my trailer hitch, child seat and front panniers?
>
> And mudguards?

And pump, nestled under the top tube clipped into the frame?

R.