Thinking of biking after 15 years...scanning craigslist- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10

    Thinking of biking after 15 years...scanning craigslist

    Hi guys,
    After 15 years, I'm thinking to bike again since I'm in Denver and weather is getting warmer.
    I'm scanning craigslist for a good used mtb for under $150.
    I saw this rockhopper for $125:
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1735314299.html

    I just want to start off as a recreational rider.
    I went through posts and decided not to buy from local grocery store.
    This forum has tons of information and I am browsing them.
    Thanks for ideas.

  2. #2
    powered by peanut butter.
    Reputation: heartland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    822
    That could be a good bike for getting started (if it fits you -- fit is everything).

    The main drawback is that it's an older bike with what looks like a 1'' threaded fork, which means that it wouldn't be possible to put a suspension fork on it down the road.

    If you're planning on riding trails around Denver, a suspension fork would be a nice thing to have, though not absolutely necessary.
    "Never trust a man in a blue trench coat. Never drive a car when you're dead." -- Tom Waits

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    Thanks for reply heartland.
    I'll see if anything better comes up.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    Found a stumpjumper with front suspension for $100 but may be too big for me as it's 20" and I'm 5'10"
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1734818460.html

  5. #5
    powered by peanut butter.
    Reputation: heartland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery
    Found a stumpjumper with front suspension for $100 but may be too big for me as it's 20" and I'm 5'10"
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1734818460.html
    Actually, there is a chance that a 20'' frame might fit you at that height. The most important thing is to ride before you buy. It's hard to know how a bike will fit until you throw a leg over it and pedal it around for a while.

    If it's too big, you'll feel too stretched out, like you're reaching too far for the handlebars. My first bike was too big, and it caused me some back pain after a while. No injuries, just soreness after an hour or so of riding.

    My advice would be to try out lots of bikes to get a feel for what fits and what doesn't. One thing on your side is that Denver is sure to have lots and lots of good used bikes, so imho it'd be worth waiting for just the right bike to come along.
    "Never trust a man in a blue trench coat. Never drive a car when you're dead." -- Tom Waits

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,183
    if you do meet up to check out a bike on craigslist, make sure it's in a busy area with people around and during the day. too many wackjobs out there.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,673
    It's a tough call between those two bikes. They're both pretty old bikes (15-20 years old). For a bike of that age, I would prefer going with the non-suspension bike because suspension back then was pretty lousy to begin with, and 15-20 years later it probably is having some problems (and you can't get parts for them anymore). So based on that, I would say the rockhopper is your best bet for a recreational riding.

    That said, the Stumpjumper is a higher-end bike. So it has a better frame (though both frames are good) and probably has better components (though it depends on the condition of the components). If the stumpy came with a rigid fork, that would be the way to go (assuming the bike fits), but I would be concerned about that old suspension fork.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    @heartland
    Thanks for encouragement

    @trailville,
    hmm...
    The ad doesn't mention what year they were built.
    I checked specialized site and they have rockhopper in 2009 as well.
    Is there something I missed that tells these are 15-20 years old bikes?
    Thanks

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: borregokid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,585
    Older bikes have different geometry, 21 speeds and thinner steel tubing rather than aluminum. Bikes after around 1995 or so had 24 speeds and after 2000 many had 27 speeds. The geometry changed around 2000 with sloping toptubes and what some would call a more relaxed ride. Plus after 1995 rigid forks were mostly replaced with suspension forks. I would be looking for something with 24 speeds, maybe even 27 less than 10 years old.

    In the under $200 sellers often really dont know much about the bikes because at the lower prices many are "resellers" picking up bikes for next to nothing from neighbors, friends, garage sales etc.

    Heres a bike here for someone around 508 tall that looks decent at $225.
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1731730913.html
    Last edited by borregokid; 05-12-2010 at 12:31 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery
    @trailville,
    hmm...
    The ad doesn't mention what year they were built.
    I checked specialized site and they have rockhopper in 2009 as well.
    Is there something I missed that tells these are 15-20 years old bikes?
    Thanks
    lot's of stuff. Cantilever brakes, threadless headsets, 7-speed, old short travel suspension fork (but may not have been original to that bike, so the bike may be even older). Though the pics aren't very good, my guess is both of those are early 90s models (or maybe even late 80s).

    There is nothing wrong with riding an early 90s or late 80s good quality rigid bike. Both the rockhopper and stumpjumpers were nice bikes, and if taken care of are still nice rides. But old suspension is another story. So is low-end newer suspension. So if you're going to buy a bike with suspension, you need to educate yourself a bit on the differences between a good suspension fork and a crappy one. A lot of the used bikes in that price range probably don't have decent suspension forks on them. That's why you may be better off with an old rigid bike.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    Ah... I see...
    That's the difference between newbie and experienced.
    Thank you for educational info on new bikes.
    From what I understood, this one looks like has newer downtubes:
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1736389841.html

    I'll keep my eyes open.
    It's not that I can't afford a good bike.
    The concern is I have failed myself many times on keeping up a hobby. I buy expensive stuffs and after few weeks they just sit inside a closet.
    So I'm looking to get a cheap bike to see how I keep up but not a safety hazard.
    Thanks... you guys are greatly helpful.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    20
    I also wants to thanks you as its helpful for me, i don't have much info just learning
    "I'm not totally useless, I can still be used as an example of uselessness!"

  13. #13
    powered by peanut butter.
    Reputation: heartland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by trailville
    There is nothing wrong with riding an early 90s or late 80s good quality rigid bike. Both the rockhopper and stumpjumpers were nice bikes, and if taken care of are still nice rides. But old suspension is another story. So is low-end newer suspension. So if you're going to buy a bike with suspension, you need to educate yourself a bit on the differences between a good suspension fork and a crappy one. A lot of the used bikes in that price range probably don't have decent suspension forks on them. That's why you may be better off with an old rigid bike.

    Good point.
    "Never trust a man in a blue trench coat. Never drive a car when you're dead." -- Tom Waits

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    What do you guys think of this one as a starter?
    Diamondback XR8 for $225 (may be little less with bargaining):
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1740481698.html

    Thanks

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystery
    What do you guys think of this one as a starter?
    Diamondback XR8 for $225 (may be little less with bargaining):
    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1740481698.html

    Thanks
    That bike is about 10 years old. Normally I would not recommend buying a 10 year old full suspension bike because modern full suspension is sooooo much better than that of 10 years ago, AND because 10-year-old suspension probably has worn parts that may be difficult to replace.

    However, that was a pretty expensive bike 10 years ago, and from the current setup (all the "accessories"), that bike probably got mainly road and rails-trails miles. So, if you check it out and the bike is in as good of shape as the description (and especially if the suspension is working), it may be worth a shot at that price. To be honest, if the parts on that bike are in good shape, you can probably part it out on ebay later and break even if not make a profit (I'm talking about selling the components, not the accessories).

    Edit: This looks like the specs for that bike
    http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/B...XR-8&Type=bike
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: borregokid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,585
    Its a pretty decent bike for its time. Its 9-10 years old and the suspension is getting a little bit dated. I think the ideal rider for this bike is someone who has cut their teeth on a hardtail and rides some rocky, crappy trails with friends all of whom have FS bikes and he wants a FS bike and $200 is all he has to spend. Also it would help to be young and pretty strong when you have to pedal this up a hill. I can see a young guy 18-25 years old owning this bike and having fun. Or maybe an older guy taking it out once in a while and then hanging it in the garage most of the year.

    Heres a Rockhopper Pro that would absolutely clean the clock on the DBR on a long climb and is more likely to get taken out of the garage. Its $175 more but in my opinion would be worth it. The DBR might be worth it-maybe if you are looking to get the most bike for the least amount of money.

    http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1737705464.html

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    I see.
    Thank you for quick reply trailville and borregokid.

    You mentioned to check suspension.
    What's the best way to check that?
    I never had a suspension bike, so not much idea on that and also I guess test ride won't be enough to test suspension fully.
    Last edited by Mystery; 05-14-2010 at 09:56 AM.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: borregokid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,585
    The biggest problem with the bike will be pedal bob. Newer rear shocks and fork lockouts have almost eliminated the bob. Some riders on long road climbs like to get out of the seat and with pedal bob you will bounce up and down much like the bicycle clown in the circus with uneven wheels. You will lose energy and speed with the bobbing. A hardtail bike will not have the bob of an older full suspension bike.

    The DBR does have value as mentioned with the parts. Still I am not sure if people will be beating down the door to buy it. Hard to say if it would be the right bike for you. At the very least you should ride a decent hardtail around the block before you get on the DBR. If you could ride the DBR up a short steep hill it would give you an idea of the pedal bob.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    Great info borregokid.
    What I get from your reply is I should not jump to FS to start with and a hardtail is better for this purpose.
    That bike you mentioned is great but $400 is little high on my mind right now and also is all mountain.
    Thanks again.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    Well I picked up this rigid bike today for $65.
    Nishiki Pueblo.
    https://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1742630147.html
    It was in very good condition, 21 speed, gears shift good, no rust, 18" frame...
    It has no shocks but should be okay for local parks to start with.
    My next one will be depending upon my experience with this one.
    Thanks for all advices.

    Last edited by Mystery; 05-15-2010 at 07:46 PM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,673
    That's a rather low-end bike, but should be fine to get you started. Just don't get upgrade fever and start dumping money into it.
    Warning: may contain sarcasm and/or crap made up in an attempt to feel important.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    That's what I'm thinking trailville.
    I'll either sell it for what I get or donate before upgrading it.
    I did go for a 45 minute ride around the local paved bike trail and my palms are little sore but I guess it takes time for my hands to get used to grabbing the handles.
    At least it takes me out from my couch.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.