Dawes XC 2.4 Gents XC bike £319.99 (RRP £550)
223°Expired

Dawes XC 2.4 Gents XC bike £319.99 (RRP £550)

23
Found 26th Aug 2008Made hot 26th Aug 2008
Great deal on a couple of decent XC bikes.

They have a version with RockShox Dart forks with lockout and one with the standard Mazzorchi MZ fork. Both forks are reasonably feeble for anything serious but with such a saving you could go and buy something better.

Sizes: Gents 16 18 20
Frame: Suspension adjusted alloy mountain bike geometry
Gears: Shimano Deore 27 speed gears
Fork: Rockshox Dart 2 with Lockout
Weight: 14.8 kg

Tech: Hayes HFX hydraulic disc brakes
Truvativ Isoflow chainset
Tioga factory XC tyres
Dawes xc 2.4 Gents.

23 Comments

Original Poster

http://www.ashcycles.com/power/images/large/Dawes/xc2.4%2007_LRG.gif

Bargain! :thumbsup:

Yep hot deal!

You don't live in Canada then ???? ;

]http//ne…stm

Seems like a real bargain with those brakes and suspension plus the Dawes names.

I normally ride on roads and grassy tracks (like bridleways) so this type of bike is of no benefit to me, but if I was doing any mud plugging or rough track riding I would buy this, so heat added.

i got a similar sort of bike at the moment 5years old. not sure whether to invest?! this is a good deal but duno!

excellent mid range hardtail mountain bike. the Hayes hydraulic disc brakes give greatstopping power for the money! baring in mind some people *ahem* spend twice this just on a pair of forks, i'd say this is Hot! ;-)

for £80 more from halfords gets you a superior frame (GT) but almost the same spec... (and its this years model not 07 like the Dawes)

halfords.com/web…=td

Good deal, especially as you get hydraulic discs here. I personally prefer hydraulic blocks, but I'm not going to take that away from a damned good deal.

Marzocchi make excellent forks, but as mentioned, probably not ideal for jumping around anywhere. Been a while since I looked at forks, but RockShox are usually pretty decent. I recommend Panaracer Fire XC Pro tyres too, providing you take a bike off the tarmac once in a while (nothing too serious, just a good tyre all 'round for me at 2.1)

Seems reasonable for the money but dont get too hung up about the forks. Neither will set the world on fire but OK for general use by most people who would be looking for a bike around this budget.
Hayes brakes are genrally very good and you shouldn't go far wrong with them. I'm one of those who would spend more than twice this on a pair of forks, but putting my sensible head on this looks OK for the money. However, I'd still check out Chain Reactions sale and possibly Wiggle.

January sales are usually the best time to buy bikes. in Jan 09 you can get 08 bikes for almost half RRP from the big retailers ;-)

batesie;2829003

excellent mid range hardtail mountain bike.


It's an "ok" budget bike, but pretty much everything on it is cheap spec, and at 15 kilos it's an absolute porker.
For people just wanting a half decent cheapo bike though, it's ok.

would you reccomend buyin this over a ]scott aspect 45
for and extra £40

thesilverfox;2829472

Good deal, especially as you get hydraulic discs here. I personally … Good deal, especially as you get hydraulic discs here. I personally prefer hydraulic blocks, but I'm not going to take that away from a damned good deal.Marzocchi make excellent forks, but as mentioned, probably not ideal for jumping around anywhere. Been a while since I looked at forks, but RockShox are usually pretty decent. I recommend Panaracer Fire XC Pro tyres too, providing you take a bike off the tarmac once in a while (nothing too serious, just a good tyre all 'round for me at 2.1)


I find a 2.1 just too wide and it gives sooo much rolling resistance. I've got 1.95 wide Michelin XC Dry2's and my bike rolls so much better. For crazy low rolling resistance you should try some 1.75 Michelin Country Rock's. I bought some for the wife but tried them on my bike I can go quite a bit faster on the nice hard packed trail I ride and you don't get the feeling that you're riding with the brakes on when you're on tarmac or concrete but they are definitely not good if it's slippery or if you really want to lean on them when there's any hint of looseness about.

I just like 2.1 for the cornering ability (the Fire XC Pro have some rather decent grip at the angles I sometimes corner). I had 1.9 a few times and while resistance was much less, I nearly lost my front-end a couple of times and on one occasion had a quite nasty accident on tarmac

Brakes better than to be expected, forks about right for the price, good old bog standard 27speed Deore. Looks right for the money. It's not going to be a light bike but weights always going to be a factor at this price. Hot.

chris_b;2830218

would you reccomend buyin this over a ]scott aspect 45for and extra £40



someone please help me :oops:

Seems ok for the price.
Don't believe the 'feeble' suspension comments. These will do everything you ask of them unless you're doing silly drop-offs.
At almost 15kg it is heavy though so I wouldn't go for this if you'll be doing lots of road miles.

Can't comment on the Scott bike, but I find that everyone has their own preferences when it comes to bikes so some will say good and some will say bad.
All I can say is that Dawes is a good trusted brand and the spec of parts here is decent for the price.

Cor, 15kg? Not too bad I suppose (will help with downhill momentum!), but if you want something light, look for 6xxx or 7xxx grade aluminium frames and alloy rims (!), as this will usually mean a much lighter bike. It doesn't say what grade/material this frame is - anyone clued up on this bike?

according to the webasite it only weighs 14.2 KG??????

chris_b;2832172

someone please help me :oops:


The Dawes has a higher spec drive train than the Scott. 27 speed Deore rather than 24 speed Acera / Alivio. The fork is possibly not as good as the Dart or Marzochhi.

chris_b;2834232

according to the webasite it only weighs 14.2 KG??????



That's not a mile away from 14.8 KGs, though.

Plus they tend to quote the lightest weight, that normally matches the smallest frame size that the bike is available in. Either way (14.2 or 14.8) it's still a good pound or two over 30 pounds, which is a fairly heavy bike.

I mean a bike with suspension (even just front forks) is always going to be a bit heavier than a rigid bike, but all the same, 32lbs is 32lbs (to give context, my completely rigid mtb from 1995 is 23.5 lbs, stock - admittedly off-the-shelf was more expensive than this bike (it was around £700-800), but all the same - and the rigid mtb I had before that (1992 model) that was around £600 at the time, was 26lbs).

All that said, unless you're in the best shape of your life, there's not many people (including cyclists) who couldn't afford to lose half a stone in body-weight / fat ;-)

Lester Burnham;2835471

That's not a mile away from 14.8 KGs, though.Plus they tend to quote the … That's not a mile away from 14.8 KGs, though.Plus they tend to quote the lightest weight, that normally matches the smallest frame size that the bike is available in. Either way (14.2 or 14.8) it's still a good pound or two over 30 pounds, which is a fairly heavy bike.I mean a bike with suspension (even just front forks) is always going to be a bit heavier than a rigid bike, but all the same, 32lbs is 32lbs (to give context, my completely rigid mtb from 1995 is 23.5 lbs, stock - admittedly off-the-shelf was more expensive than this bike (it was around £700-800), but all the same - and the rigid mtb I had before that (1992 model) that was around £600 at the time, was 26lbs).All that said, unless you're in the best shape of your life, there's not many people (including cyclists) who couldn't afford to lose half a stone in body-weight / fat ;-)


Very true. I bought my bike to get fit so it being a little bit heavy isn't a problem.

306maxi;2835521

Very true. I bought my bike to get fit so it being a little bit heavy … Very true. I bought my bike to get fit so it being a little bit heavy isn't a problem.



Although it was a little tongue-in-cheek glib comment by me, it tends to be true, as something of an old-school cycling-weeny, I've always wanted the lightest bike for the money I could afford.

The one thing I would say, though, is that if you have any intentions of it being a sustained hobby, getting the lightest bike - or at least lightest frame you can afford, makes a lot of sense.

Cyclists always tend to replace or change components, normally involving an upgrade along the way, so the lightest and best frame, is nearly always the best choice.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text