Considering a trek 7300 for my daughter

[Hayabusa Rider]

With suspension

Without

What is the practical difference between the two. Everything being equal, why would someone pick the bike without suspension?

 

[mb]

First thing I noticed were the handle bars..
They seem quite different http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/com...bike1=1324600&bike2=1327010&bike3=null but I'm no bike expert (got mine at Wal-Mart ) so I don't know what it all means...

 

[Kelemvor]

http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/com...bike1=1324600&bike2=1327010&bike3=null

Doh. Same link as above. They have a Compare feature there that goes through some of the specs. Might want to find a local bike shop that might have both and ask them what the difference is. Might just be the suspension stuff is the main difference.

 

[vi edit]

The biggest problem I've run into with the street bikes with weak front suspensions (RST falls into that group) is that they "mush" out on you and kill any ability to accellerate well on the bike.

Basically if you try to get agressive on the bike the front forks just dip down and prevent you from getting a good momentum built up. They'll also bottom out easy and are there more for marketing than anything.

But your daughter probably isn't pushing 200 pounds and really beating the crap out of the bike like I did.

I had a GT hybrid that was pretty much identical component wise to the Trek. It was comfy and worked for riding streets and paved trails, but the front RST suspension was more for marketing than any function. It just was too soft and didn't have enough travel.

 

[Martin]

damn, I want a trek too.

Can I be your daughter as well? I can take the new ferry and come by to pick it up

 

[xospec1alk]

when i bought my bike, trek 7200, iirc....

the salesman told me that the bike w/ the suspension was crap and not to waste my money on it...

 

[JulesMaximus]

They frequently put really cheap front forks on those hardtail mtbs. If she's not going to ride it off road or on trails at all then I'd probably get her the one without suspension.

 

[notfred]

Suspension makes the front of a road bike mushy without any real benefit. you get a bike that compresses in the front when you pedal hard instead of accelerating like you want it to. Meanwhile, you rarely hit a bump on the street that will really benefit from the suspension.

Even on mountain bikes, here suspension is actually beneficial. many of them come with a "lock-out" feature so that you can disable the suspension when you're climbing or otherwise require the most efficiency possible.

Suspension on a road bike isa gimmick that does more harm than good.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

vi_edit and notfred are right, take their advice

By the way, Treks rock

<---- trek owner!

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
vi_edit and notfred are right, take their advice

By the way, Treks rock

<---- trek owner!

I've got a Treky Fisher. Err...Gary Fisher.

 

[Blieb]

One is SRAM components and one is Shimano ... I prefer shimano, but that's just me.

Have her go for a test ride!!!

 

[NutBucket]

Yeah, I'd go for the one without the shock. It has better components on it. I doubt she'll ever have any use for the shock anyway.

That said, I'll be Brutuskend and recommend a Haro V3.