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