Trek 4300 or 4500?

Quoted message said:

I am in an interesting situation here.

I can afford the Trek 4300 comfortably.

If I think about it hard, I could probably afford the 4500
too. It just means I need to eat out less.

If I think about it really hard, I could even afford the
6700, I just need to cut down on my other gadgets. Come to
think of it, I don't really need that ipod.

But as someone beginning to get into biking (I am around
30), would the difference between the 4500, 4300, 6700,
really make a difference for me?

Before someone decides to throw in the silly whichever one
fits, I've tried them all and they all fit fine! 🙂

If I get the 4300, there's a probability that I might find
it limiting. I'd hate to spend another $600 getting
something better later. If I get the 6700 now, then being
so expensive, I might be afraid of someone stealing it.
Will the 6700 last a good 10 year of use? Assume that I
takes good care of it?

Raymond

They'll all last 10 years or more if you take care of them.
It just depends what you want to do. The 4300 and 4500
appear to be the same frame, but the 4500 has a bit better
gear. The 4300 looks like it's got a lot of budget "no-name"
components. That will probably do just fine if you plan to
stick to bike paths and cruises through the local park. The
4500 will give you some marginal improvement in components
and a low end (as opposed to no-name) front suspension. Both
are 8 speed, which is getting harder to find replacements
for, but not impossible. Depending on how much you ride, you
may never need to replace the cassette anyway -- or you
could go through several a year if you put lots of hard, wet
miles on 'em.

The 6700 is a slightly different frame, and probably has a
more aggressive riding position (based on what I see on the
web site). It also has some better components that may offer
better performance, and slight weight savings. Durability
isn't guaranteed. My wife rides a steel hardtail over ten
years old with the original SRAM 7sp shifters and Alivio
der, I've never adjusted it and it still indexes perfectly
-- front and rear.

Try 'em out. Figure out what kind of riding you want to do.
Talk to the guys an a good bike shop. Don't limit yourself
to Trek. They've got lots of offerings in the range you're
looking for, but let a bike shop point you where your needs
will best be met. Buy what suits you based on good advice
and your budget. It doesn't make sense to drop big $$$s on a
bike if all you want to do is ride to class three days a
week. Likewise, you may find the compomises of an entry-
level bike don't measure up to what you want to do with it.

Tom

Quoted message said:

I am in an interesting situation here.

I can afford the Trek 4300 comfortably.

If I think about it hard, I could probably afford the 4500
too. It just means I need to eat out less.

If I think about it really hard, I could even afford the
6700, I just need to cut down on my other gadgets. Come to
think of it, I don't really need that ipod.

But as someone beginning to get into biking (I am around
30), would the difference between the 4500, 4300, 6700,
really make a difference for me?

Before someone decides to throw in the silly whichever one
fits, I've tried them all and they all fit fine! 🙂

If I get the 4300, there's a probability that I might find
it limiting. I'd hate to spend another $600 getting
something better later. If I get the 6700 now, then being
so expensive, I might be afraid of someone stealing it.
Will the 6700 last a good 10 year of use? Assume that I
takes good care of it?

Raymond

You will lose a lot more money if you buy an expensive bike
now and decide biking isn't for you.

You will save a lot more money if you buy a cheaper bike now
and ride the [censored] out of it now (wearing out stuff, getting
better at technical stuff, crashing, scratching the bike,
etc.) and then get rid of it later somehow. Your skills will
be miles better, and you'll be smoother and nicer to your
new bike in a year.

My advice - no bike EVER limits you. Get the cheaper bike,
ride it for at least 6 months or a year, and then dump your
money on a bike you'll know you want. I bought a Giant XTC a
little over a year ago, and now I wish I had bought a
Specialized P2 or P3 or a Giant STP2. I'm scared to try
bigger stuff on the XTC, its main purpose being straight XC.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Hmmm. Yes and No.

I did largely what Phil promotes here. Worked my way up
through junker bikes. At the time the various bikes seemed
to be at the limit of my budget anyways, so I always made
due with low-end components, etc. Spent a lot of time
getting bad components to work properly, which I suppose was
not a waste, but it sure reduced my riding hours. I recall
one particularly dismal spring afternoon sitting in a wet
boggy area swarmed by mosquitoes while I tried to get my
rear derailleur working. Wouldn't repeat that episode for
anything now :-o

When I think back, I probably owned 3 bikes which were junk
before I finally got a decent hardtail. If you added up the
money I "wasted" on junkers, I could have had a fairly
decent bike to start with. With reasonable care it would
have lasted as long as all three junkers, allowed me to
progress faster, and might have even had some resale value
at that time.

If I had it to do over, I'd probably go the alternate route
and opt for the better bike (and try lots of bikes, not just
trek). If after a couple of months you just don't get the
itch, it would have relatively better resale value - it's
not like you just have to swallow the complete loss. Or, you
could buy a decent used bike for the same price as a lower
end new bike - perhaps the best option. Find a bike-savvy
friend to help determine sizing and decent component level.
*and try lots of bikes*.

My $.02

"ZeeExSixAre" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am in an interesting situation here.

I can afford the Trek 4300 comfortably.

If I think about it hard, I could probably afford the
4500 too. It just means I need to eat out less.

If I think about it really hard, I could even afford the
6700, I just need to cut down on my other gadgets. Come
to think of it, I don't really need that ipod.

But as someone beginning to get into biking (I am around
30), would the difference between the 4500, 4300, 6700,
really make a difference for me?

Before someone decides to throw in the silly whichever
one fits, I've tried them all and they all fit fine! 🙂

If I get the 4300, there's a probability that I might
find it limiting. I'd hate to spend another $600 getting
something better later. If I get the 6700 now, then
being so expensive, I might be afraid of someone
stealing it. Will the 6700 last a good 10 year of use?
Assume that I takes good care of it?

Raymond

You will lose a lot more money if you buy an expensive
bike now and decide biking isn't for you.

You will save a lot more money if you buy a cheaper bike
now and ride the [censored] out of it now (wearing out stuff,
getting better at technical stuff, crashing, scratching
the bike, etc.) and then get rid of it later somehow. Your
skills will be miles better, and you'll be smoother and
nicer to your new bike in a year.

My advice - no bike EVER limits you. Get the cheaper bike,
ride it for at least 6 months or a year, and then dump
your money on a bike you'll know

you

Quoted message said:

want. I bought a Giant XTC a little over a year ago, and
now I wish I had bought a Specialized P2 or P3 or a Giant
STP2. I'm scared to try bigger stuff on the XTC, its main
purpose being straight XC.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Quoted message said:

When I think back, I probably owned 3 bikes which were
junk before I finally got a decent hardtail. If you added
up the money I "wasted" on junkers, I could have had a
fairly decent bike to start with.

There was no need to go through the three junkers before the
decent hardtail... One would have told the whole story, no?
Or were you simply unaware of what was out there (as I was)?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training