Joined
·
8 Posts
Hi all,
Newbie here, looking for some buying advice… I'm interested in getting a used Gary Fisher hardtail as a starting bike (mainly for XC and all-mountain -- no downhill or anything like that), and have a couple options available to me. I'd appreciate some input on which is the overall better deal and better long-term option:
------------------------------
1999 Procaliber (downgraded from stock specs, it seems)
Drivetrain: LX shifters, front derailleur, and crank; XT rear derailleur
Brakes: Avid 1.9 levers, Avid 2.0 calipers (v-brakes)
Fork: Rock Shox Judy XC (long travel)
Tires/Rims: Brontrager Race Hub/rim (front); Rhynolite rim & Shimano Silent Hub (rear)
Other: Shimano Silent Hub, some kind of bar ends (doesn't matter that much to me), SPD pedals. Pretty decent condition for a bike that's been used -- some scratches on the chainstay from the chain slipping, but otherwise in reasonable shape for a bike over 10 years old.
Price: $275 (not $200 -- oops)
------------------------------
1997 Supercaliber (seems closer to stock, with a different fork)
Drivetrain: XT
Brakes: Shimano XT v-brakes
Fork: Fox Float 100 RLC
Tires/Rims: not sure
Other: In better cosmetic condition than the Procaliber, but not perfect.
Price: $350
------------------------------
So… a couple questions:
Are both of these frames able to mount disc brakes in case I want to go that route in the future? I've tried to figure out how to tell, but no luck.
I realize the Procaliber is the "higher level" bike, but given everything above (component differences, etc.), which of these do you think is the better deal? Or even -- are the prices reasonable in the first place?
If you were me, which would you buy: Procaliber, Supercaliber, or neither?
Thanks in advance. Looking forward to joining the Fisher crowd.
--BC
Edit: I just realized I should have posted this in the Bikes & Frames forum, so I'll post it there instead. If someone can delete this, that would be great, as I can't seem to do so myself.
Newbie here, looking for some buying advice… I'm interested in getting a used Gary Fisher hardtail as a starting bike (mainly for XC and all-mountain -- no downhill or anything like that), and have a couple options available to me. I'd appreciate some input on which is the overall better deal and better long-term option:
------------------------------
1999 Procaliber (downgraded from stock specs, it seems)
Drivetrain: LX shifters, front derailleur, and crank; XT rear derailleur
Brakes: Avid 1.9 levers, Avid 2.0 calipers (v-brakes)
Fork: Rock Shox Judy XC (long travel)
Tires/Rims: Brontrager Race Hub/rim (front); Rhynolite rim & Shimano Silent Hub (rear)
Other: Shimano Silent Hub, some kind of bar ends (doesn't matter that much to me), SPD pedals. Pretty decent condition for a bike that's been used -- some scratches on the chainstay from the chain slipping, but otherwise in reasonable shape for a bike over 10 years old.
Price: $275 (not $200 -- oops)
------------------------------
1997 Supercaliber (seems closer to stock, with a different fork)
Drivetrain: XT
Brakes: Shimano XT v-brakes
Fork: Fox Float 100 RLC
Tires/Rims: not sure
Other: In better cosmetic condition than the Procaliber, but not perfect.
Price: $350
------------------------------
So… a couple questions:
Are both of these frames able to mount disc brakes in case I want to go that route in the future? I've tried to figure out how to tell, but no luck.
I realize the Procaliber is the "higher level" bike, but given everything above (component differences, etc.), which of these do you think is the better deal? Or even -- are the prices reasonable in the first place?
If you were me, which would you buy: Procaliber, Supercaliber, or neither?
Thanks in advance. Looking forward to joining the Fisher crowd.
--BC
Edit: I just realized I should have posted this in the Bikes & Frames forum, so I'll post it there instead. If someone can delete this, that would be great, as I can't seem to do so myself.
