![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2
|
they said that hardrock is stronger, but the new rockhopper has the new m4 alloy. they said its much stronger and lighter. I want a bike that is strong enough to carry me (180lbs.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
If you can afford the Rockhopper, go with that. It's plenty strong enough for 180lbs, plus it's lighter and should be higher spec. I'm over 200lbs and have 2004 m4 Stumpjumper, and I assume the new Rockhopper frame is pretty much the same as the Stumpjumper frame was a couple of years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 19
|
I agree. The rockhopper is way better. My friend has a '07 rockhopper sport (very stiff frame for the price). The component lineup on the '08 rockhopper is SRAM, and you get avids Juicy 3s versus the bb5s on the hardrock. Someone said the hardrock is a beefier, more downhill like frame, but ive tried one and its just dead weight. Rockhopper or Hardrock is like Frontier or Mesa (schwinn). The Hardrock is for if you like commute to work and your bike sees the trails maybe once a month, but the Rockhopper is for off-road performance. The rockhopper is mostly like stumpy, but not a race version. YOur best bet is to head to your local bike shop and ask them.
Glad i could help |
|
|
|