Mountain bikes - why are some so expensive?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Arg wrote: »

Even cheap front suspension is better than none for our potholed roads.

I have never found that a problem. Most can be avoided.

thelawnet

Anselm wrote: »

^ that looks quality, how would it compare to a Viking Vittoria 2008 road racer?,

The viking is a substantially more expensive bike with better gears etc. fitted to it.

rxbren

higher spec bikes with front suspension have frame designs/suspension setups that dont take away a lot of pedal power
when i had my ms isle at the time high end full suspension bikes had reactive rear shocks that will stiffen under load/pedalling to reduce the power loss not sure if they still use that technology now though and also there frame designs are specifically designed to reduce loss of pedal power- but cheap full suspension bikes are pointless all they do is bounce
my opinion is if your riding in urban enviroments get a hard tail(front suspension) at least if you want to go off road or cut across a park you can. i feel road/racer bikes are better suited to country roads/tracks

thelawnet

Higher spec bikes with front suspensions are designed for mountain biking.

They still are dramatically slower than road bikes.

You will find that people willing to pay £1k on a bike will either buy a light road bike with no suspension, a touring bike with luggage capabilities but no suspension, or a proper off-road bike with suspension either full or front.