Ridgeback vs B-Twin

[rikbradley]

Hi, looking for some buying advice for a new Hybrid, mainly to be used for my commute to work on roads and some canal towpath/light bridleway.

I have narrowed my choices down to the Ridgeback Storm (2020) and the B-Twin Riverside 920. Both are £600 with front suspension and disc brakes.

The spec seems similar to my untrained eye, so I am wondering if the build quality of these brands could be a differentiating factor? A few friends have raved about B-Twin, and the quality of components for the money - however my local bikeshop highly recommended Ridgeback for their quality and robustness (the shop IS a Ridgeback stockist though....!!!)

Any advice over which to choose would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

[Brucey]

bike shops like ridgebacks because they are usually screwed together reasonably well when they come out of the box and not that many come back with loose parts etc after a month or so. You will never get a LBS saying a Btwin is a good bike because that is a decathlon brand and they would lose a potential sale. The main issues with Btwins are that the build quality is variable and there is unlikely to be anyone in a decathlon shop that will take personal responsibility for the bike in the same way as ought to happen in a good LBS. I have never seen a Btwin where the hubs were properly adjusted for example.

FWIW if you are spending money to get front suspension, I would question this approach; for the kind of riding that you describe you can do well enough with careful selection of tyres, and the money would be better spent on other parts of the bike instead.

cheers

[maxglide]

Among others, I own both a Ridgeback & a B'Twin Rockrider 300 (discontinued), both purchased new in 2014.

Both have been reliable. The Rockrider - for the money - is of surprising quality & durability, but no longer available. The Ridgeback, considerably pricier, has also been reliable and trouble free, and beats the B'twin on quality.

From reviews I've read, the B'twin Riverside is not so durable for long term use. I'd go for the Ridgeback.

[pjclinch]

I'd echo Brucey's comments about suspension. Unless you're taking big off-road hits the sort of suspension that goes on this kind of bike doesn't really help. Compared to a plain fork it costs more, is heavier, and lacking a lockout tends to waste energy when going up hills. The plus points are really marketing ones: feature point on the swing ticket. Decent tyres will give you the suspension you need for road and path.

Pete.

[rikbradley]

That's great advice, thank you very much. I will head down the ridgeback route, but minus the suspension

[robgul]

The other thing that the LBS likes about Ridgeback is that we don't have big "minimum buy ins" for stock in the shop - if it's in stock at the supplier (Madison/Sportline) it arrives the next day at the shop. I sell loads of 'em!

... and I would concur on suspension - just adds cost, weight and saps the power from the human engine!

Rob

[MarcusT]

I agree with Brucey re; LBS. From my experience Decathlon does not have very good mechanics and many times they are only part time. If you can get the Ridgeway from a reputable LBS, go for it. They may even give you a good price, where Deca does no haggling

[thelawnet]

The Storms spec seems a bit mean for £600. The btwin has a 1x11 drivetrain which is not a great idea imo.

[Sweep]

That's great advice, thank you very much. I will head down the ridgeback route, but minus the suspension

Good call. Suspension is a liability for most bikes and riding applications. In time you would most likely end up with a lump of scrap on the front and dump the bike. Without suspension a good bike can run for decades, even if trigger's broom by the end.

Will try to return to main thread topic when on a proper keyboard.

[gxaustin]

When my lad was younger he wanted a new bike and fancied suspension. I suggested he lift the bikes with and without suspension forks to shoulder level. He went for the rigid version