"DJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I can see your point Pete but Clint was after a simple kind of bike so he
may be on a lowish kind of budget (sorry if I'm wrong here) and so that's
why when i seen this Raleigh bike i thought it would have to be a better
bike than what he was looking for and proably around the same price.
Yes, I took that on board. My concern was that this shop lists the Raleigh
as having a normal RRP of $750. All I wanted to point out to Clint and
anyone else is that this is grossly overpriced for a bike that would really
sell for no more than $400 new in a LBS
Quoted message said:It was noted that the Raleigh had a reasonable warranty, if that's to be
trusted.
Beats me why they blanked out al in Raleigh (in the advert pics)when it
hits
Quoted message said:you in the face as soon as you look at it...don't they think we've never
heard of Raleigh bikes before, they've been around a long time.
Yeah, that seemed pretty pointless to me too. Maybe the tinks Raleigh's
local dealer will go him for advertising their bikes when he's not a dealer.
Quoted message said:After reading Clint's criteria again, i noticed he mentioned suspension
frame which I s'pose he'd be meaning those front & rear suspended models,
Clint, if you're reading this, forget the full suspension models, the rear
shocks are not real good, nor are the pivot points in the frames, if you
want to go this way then look up and over the $1,000 mark. Rear suspension
do tend to absord lots of pedal power compared to a solid rear frame.
Rear suspension (and to some extent front suspension) on budget level bikes
are a total waste of time. You really don't need it to ride the bike paths,
we all learned to ride and rode happily for many years without suspension,
and on cheap bikes the suspension is heavy, works poorly and is prone to
failure. Do without and have a calmer life.
Cheers
Peter