Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    106

    Rockhopper best bike/compromise between..

    Is the Rockhopper considered the best all around bike before getting into specialized bikes such as XC Racing or DH etc.? One thing I've recently noticed is that there aren't any real high end bikes that 'do it all' but instead are very specialized.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    High-end = racing/competition for the most part. Those are the people that can justify the exorbitant prices/have their bikes paid for/etc.

    There are some do-it-all trail bikes out there that are plenty high-end for anyone who's not racing or just a component whore.

    Some decent examples are: the Kona Caldera (HT) and Dawg (FS) and the Specialized Enduro/Epic lines. There are TONS of others out there. And they are pretty darn high-end, just not $5-6K race bikes.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    106
    Is a rockhopper considered an all mountain bike or is it more geared towards XC? What would a Freeride, XC, and DH bike do differently than what is on the rockhopper? One thing I do know is that a DH bike is sloped backwards so there is less weight forward and heavier duty brakes.

  4. #4
    Spider Patrol
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    63
    I just sold my Rockhopper after close to 4 years of happy riding (moved on to a litespeed The Rockhopper isn't a sexy bike by any means, but it's extremely versatile. On mine I podium'd at XC races in California and VT, and when not racing had a blast on really any trail that either of those states threw at me. The only thing I wouldn't use it for is serious downhill/freeride riding. But if you're just looking to get out and ride, and don't really know yet what kind of riding you like best, the Rockhopper is the perfect way to do it.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    774
    I agree with OokieCookie, the Rockhopper is a pretty versatile frame. As long as you're not a total clyde, it ought to be able to take what you dish out until you really know what you want. That's when you drop the big bucks.
    Last edited by hardway; 06-28-2007 at 07:05 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bubba74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    832
    My friend has a 14 year old rockhopper that he still bombs with it(he's stubborn and thinks full suspension is a waste). He has probably put over 5000 trail miles on it. Granted it's in rough shape, but that's gotta tell you something about the bike

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by hardway
    I agree with OokieCookie, the Rockhopper is a pretty versatile frame. As long as you're not a total clyde, it ought to be able to take what you dish out until you really know what you want. That's you drop the big bucks.
    I know this may seem kindof funny to you but I don't know what you're referring to when you say "clyde" as that could be referring to this: clyde –noun Slang. 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a stupid, inept, or boorish person. or you're referring to this:http://forums.mtbr.com/clydesdales-tall-riders/

    So I don't know..

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    774
    I know this may seem kindof funny to you but I don't know what you're referring to when you say "clyde" as that could be referring to this: clyde –noun Slang. 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a stupid, inept, or boorish person. or you're referring to this:http://forums.mtbr.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95

    So I don't know..

    Since I don't know you personally, and we aren't crossing e-swords, I think there's an obvious choice here....

    But, when you see the term, "Clyde" here on these forums, or hear it in relation to mountain biking, it refers to a person of large size, generally tipping the scales at 200+ lbs.

    A large percentage of the mtb population (and the population as a whole, I guess) are little folk who weigh in around the 160lbs mark or below. These people can ride hard and throw down all kinds of stuff without putting the strain on their equipment that that us fatter (or more buff, as the case may be) mtb'rs dish out on an easy downhill run.
    Hence, you will see equipment rated as, "Clyde proof" or, "Not clyde friendly", etc...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by hardway
    Since I don't know you personally, and we aren't crossing e-swords, I think there's an obvious choice here....

    But, when you see the term, "Clyde" here on these forums, or hear it in relation to mountain biking, it refers to a person of large size, generally tipping the scales at 200+ lbs.

    A large percentage of the mtb population (and the population as a whole, I guess) are little folk who weigh in around the 160lbs mark or below. These people can ride hard and throw down all kinds of stuff without putting the strain on their equipment that that us fatter (or more buff, as the case may be) mtb'rs dish out on an easy downhill run.
    Hence, you will see equipment rated as, "Clyde proof" or, "Not clyde friendly", etc...
    Well ****, 200lbs? That's how much I am as of now, however I should be at around 180.. What kinds of things would be labled "clyde proof"? What kind of an effect does being tall have as well? Just higher center of gravity?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bubba74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    832
    Not sure about what is "clyde proof", but I would guess that any real light "xc" stuff (rims, shocks, frames) might be over-stressed with a big person.

    As a point of reference, I used to be 225 pounds (now I'm 175 thanks to biking). I took a header with my Cannondale f400 with mavic xc717 light rims at 30 miles an hour. I fractured my scapula and cracked my helmet. My bike, on the other hand, didn't even need to be adjusted...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba74
    Not sure about what is "clyde proof", but I would guess that any real light "xc" stuff (rims, shocks, frames) might be over-stressed with a big person.

    As a point of reference, I used to be 225 pounds (now I'm 175 thanks to biking). I took a header with my Cannondale f400 with mavic xc717 light rims at 30 miles an hour. I fractured my scapula and cracked my helmet. My bike, on the other hand, didn't even need to be adjusted...
    So what exactly went wrong?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bubba74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    832

    The fall was totally my fault :)

    I was on a single track trail that opened up into a logging road. I was going way too fast and hit a large 8" rut at an angle. I jackknifed the handlebars and flew over the front.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    774
    Well ****, 200lbs? That's how much I am as of now, however I should be at around 180.. What kinds of things would be labled "clyde proof"? What kind of an effect does being tall have as well? Just higher center of gravity?

    If you're around the 200 lb mark, the Rockhopper should be fine. I'm >230lbs with gear, and I still have a fully rigid Rockhopper I rode for years and beat the hell out of occasionally for old time's sake.

    Stuff that should be, "Clyde proof" are mostly wheels, cranks, and of course, the frame itself. Handlebars also if you're doing any jumping, but it sounds like not yet.

    Being taller will give you a higher center of gravity, but mostly you just need to have a larger frame to handle the long legs and torso/arms.

    If you were like, "Hey, I'm 270+ with gear!" I'd recommend something else. One of my buds is large like this, and I steered him towards the Hardrock to start off mountain biking. The thing has taken a beating and is still going strong!

  14. #14
    Fat guy on a bike
    Reputation: Mordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    703
    I am a 'super clyde' which means i am welllll over 200lbs. I have an 06 rockhopper, and besides the stock wheels its very tough. Throw some Azonic Outlaws or other heavy duty wheel set on one and its pretty much bomb proof.

    As to how 'all-mountain' a rockhopper can be, they will do just fine with a 130mm or so fork, which they were sold with in 06. I'm considering putting a Recon or Revelation on mine some time as the Tora, while tough, is a heavy pig and short on tunability.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,849
    Is the R.Hopper still the official ride of the AM forum?
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    106
    So a rockhopper is considered an Allmountain bike?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    774
    So a rockhopper is considered an Allmountain bike?
    If you put a Pike on it it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •