I used to ride a Trek 8900 when I was in highschool... a specialized FSR comp before that. The FSR had awesome rear suspension, but it was a heavy bike. The 8900 was a lot faster.

From there I moved to a 2001 Cannondale F2000sl. SL stood for superlight... and by God, it was light. I swapped wheels, brakes (hope mini's -- NOT the mono minis) and a few other choice parts... I always ride a 2x9 drivetrain, as I don't need the granny, and it saves a bit of weight. I do run a 29 tooth "small" ring though, opposed to the usual 32 tooth middle ring. My f2000 with dual discs was under 20 lbs, it was 20.4 with my USE XCR suspensions seatpost, and continental double fighter pro tires. It was an easy under 20 with superlight tires and a ridgid post. That bike was FAST... it is like it propelled itself up hills. Pedalling effort meant instantanious accelleration... but it beat the HELL out of me. I sold it for a specialized team DH, which needed parts. I finished that build and sold it before ever riding it.

Right now I own an 03 Cannondale Jekyll 1000 (I've upgraded it a lot) and a 2002 Specialized Allez Comp road bike.

Honestly, the Jekyll is a VERY comfortable bike. Has remote lockout... but I can ride it all day long without pain (muscle pain aside!)
I know you can get used Jekylls for cheap... the jekyll uses very simple rear suspension though, without lockout, it sucks. I advocate 4-bar linkage, otherwise... specialized uses it, as well as a few other companies.
Somebody mentioned Titus... I remember the stinger, was it? Same idea as the K2 razorback... but yeah.

My dream bike? Moots Fat beat! Cannondale Ultra SL fork in a moots softtail Ti frame... sex!

Cannondale's forks (headshok) are the best forks on the planet. Note my username.

 

So disc brakes would be bad?? I am pretty sure I dont need the rear susp. cuz I am not gonna be downhilling much. Speaking of weight, I dont see it listed on any bike site, why is that? You would figure that would be something they put in the spec charts.

 

I dunno I really like disc brakes they feel so much nicer

 

At 490 dollars or whatever for a brand new bike, you'll be running cable discs... which have come a long way since the first models...
But yeah, discs are a lot nicer than V brakes for maintenance reasons, as well as wet weather performance. In dry moderate braking situations, V's will do just as well... but in the wet, a decent set of discs will out perform XTR V's. (Do they even make XTR v's anymore?

I would seriously buy used though man... You could get something a lot nicer for the same money. Just get something like 1 year old... it'll be great. I bought my Jekyll for 1650 CDN in 2004, it was a 3000 dollar bike. They don't hold their value so well -- which means buying used is smart!

As for weight... very few companies list it. They say different sizes and whatnot will yield different weights... but that is actually pretty minimal. I don't know why they don't give a ballpark weight... it sure is frustrating.
Google for weight weenies though... not sure they offer real weights of complete bikes, but they might.

As for rear suspension... it isn't just for downhilling, and hasn't been for many years. Rear suspension can help with climbing and accelleration, as well as tracking through a corner. It helps keep that rear tire on the ground... which does as much for traction as it does for your comfort. The reason for you to avoid rear suspension is your budget, and that you are looking at new bikes. A 490 dollar bike with rear suspension will not be a good example... and the other components on the bike will suffer greatly to facilitate the cost of the rear susp.

Look into used! www.pinkbike.com is cool... although very Canadian. MTBR used to be cool until they started charging for ads... they really shot themselves in the foot.

 

Weight is difficult to list because, as Chris said, different sized frames weigh slightly differently. And in all teh different variations of equipment (discs v. V-brakes/handlebars/seatposts/pedals/cranksets - plus, someone also mentioned 2x9 versus 3x7 or 3x8 for gearing) and you can see how varied weight can be. No one wants to brag about frame weight b/c as soon as they do someone else has one that's 0.000000000000g LESS...

 

I was wondering about the weight thing too. It does seem like it would be on the site.

I'm learning a lot on this thread. I'm now fishing around for used bikes.

 

No, discs are GOOD!!! All-weather stopping. Anybody whose EVER ridden in teh rain will attest to the LACK of stopability with "rim" brakes, even V-Brakes, although slightly better, still SUCK OUT LOUD when it comes to stopping in teh wet...

Discs come in Cable and hydraulic versions. Cable give you a good forearm workout, or so I've been told. Hydraulic cost more...

For best w/w stopping with rim brakes simply look for the softest thing you can find and broadside it

 

I hate treks... I have always had problems with them.

Have you looked at non-name brand stuff?

I like motobecane (which is a really big euro-brand but not big in the US) I think it is bikesdirect.com that sells motobecane.

It really is mostly about the components you are getting, shimano LX or better. For a starter I would go with LX. Or go with SRAM although I only know the 9 and 10 are good in that.

look on pricepoint.com when you want a sweet frame. They usually have the last years model for cheap. If you can find a shop to put a frame together for you or have the basics of assembly down you can make an awesome bike for cheap.

I just upgraded my 1998 to all shimano XT and a bigger fork for about 300 bucks (friend had fork that was worth a ton that he was selling for 100 bucks). Just be careful to get the right parts and don't try to substitute specialty tools.

 

If you can wrench on yor car you shud be able to wrench on your bike. Mechanical is mechanical. Righty-tighty, lefty-loosy. Fulcrum = lever. It ain't Rocket Surgery[8D]

 

Lol rocket surgery