# BSO



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

whilst looking looking through the acronyms, I found BSO. I was curious as to why such an acronym was needed. Does this refer to motor bikes, scooters etc or is the term meant for something else?


----------



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

I was afraid of that. Is it an appropriate acronym to have in a forum devoted to the furtherence of general cycling?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Jun 2011)

Highly appropriate.


rowan 46 said:


> I was afraid of that. Is it an appropriate acronym to have in a forum devoted to the furtherence of general cycling?


----------



## ian turner (28 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I was afraid of that. Is it an appropriate acronym to have in a forum devoted to the furtherence of general cycling?



Yup. Should you encourage people to buy bikes where the front forks are on back to front ?
Or Apollo mountain bikes where chunks keep snapping off the groupset ?
£100 Decathlon bikes do get suggested to folks (though there may be decathlon employees embedded here)
and there is a dedicated Aldi/Lidl cycling gear fan club 
More so than scalping


----------



## Adasta (28 Jun 2011)

TheMadCyclist said:


> Bicycle shaped objects. - A term used by bike snobs to define "Cheap" bikes from Argos ect.



It's not snobbery. Snobbery would be looking down on someone for riding a steel-framed 80s number while you're riding some super-lightweight carbon job.

BSOs are made down to a price. Therefore, the components are poor and the bikes themselves are often poorly put together.


----------



## summerdays (28 Jun 2011)

It isn't the price that defines a BSO ... it is the imitation of a bike ... cheap working maintainable bikes are fine ... ones which are made of extremely poor quality materials or design are BSO's.


----------



## benb (28 Jun 2011)

It's not an acronym, it's an initialism.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Jun 2011)

Why?


benb said:


> It's not an acronym, it's an initialism.
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism


----------



## Adasta (28 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why?



An acronym is something that you can "say".

Like "SMIDSY", for example.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Jun 2011)

I can say BSO. Do you mean that Smidsy is spoken as a word rather than BSO which is spoken as three letters?


----------



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

benb said:


> It's not an acronym, it's an initialism.
> http://en.m.wikipedi..._and_initialism



I stand corrected


----------



## benb (28 Jun 2011)

You have to be able to say it as a word for it to be an acronym.

Radar is an acronym.
CIA is an initialism.


----------



## Adasta (28 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I can say BSO. Do you mean that Smidsy is spoken as a word rather than BSO which is spoken as three letters?



Yeah.


----------



## corshamjim (28 Jun 2011)

Another problem with BSOs is that often they come in a box with scant instructions and inadequate tools to assemble them safely.

I'm quite tempted, I have to say, to buy a BSO myself for a winter commuter bike, fully expecting to replace most of the cheesiest components in the first few months.


----------



## Cubist (28 Jun 2011)

Tesco at Brighouse had a display of two BSOs (70 quid steel Y-framed dual suspension objets d'horreur) on display this evening. Both had forks on back to front. The manager laughed when he saw them, as he said "Even I can see they're the wrong way round!"

OP, a BSO is something that purports to be a bike, but will actually put the buyer off cycling for life because it will be next to impossible to maintain in rideable form. They end up cluttering up sheds, garages and front gardens before appearing in classified ads with hopelessly optimistic prices.


----------



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

I saw a collection of vintage cycles at a rally a while back, all of them were called bicycles all of them were beautifully maintained. some of them looked a lot more dangerous than argos bikes. Is there evidence that bso's put people off cycling? I have driven them all my life whenever I have asked others why they don't cycle,the majority answer that it's because of the dangers of traffic or they have a car, or they can't be bothered. Only once Have I come across somebody having a bad mechanical experience of a bso which put them off all bikes. It strikes me that a person who can only afford a cheap bike shouldn't be looked down because of it. A bso is a bike it may not be as good as the high end ones but properly maintained it will get you there. We don't call people who don't drive high end sports cars. people who drive car shaped objects so why the disparaging term for cheap bikes. My guess is most of us started on these bikes so why the shame.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Jun 2011)

Vintage bikes may well be more dangerous than modern bikes.
BSO's have a reputation of failing very quickly after limited use. As for the car comparison a BSO would be like a brand new 4x4 being sold for a few £1000. Would you buy one of those?
I know a few people who rode BSO's. Once they had ridden an entry level MTB they did not want to ride their bike again.


rowan 46 said:


> I saw a collection of vintage cycles at a rally a while back, all of them were called bicycles all of them were beautifully maintained. some of them looked a lot more dangerous than argos bikes. Is there evidence that bso's put people off cycling? I have driven them all my life whenever I have asked others why they don't cycle,the majority answer that it's because of the dangers of traffic or they have a car, or they can't be bothered. Only once Have I come across somebody having a bad mechanical experience of a bso which put them off all bikes. It strikes me that a person who can only afford a cheap bike shouldn't be looked down because of it. A bso is a bike it may not be as good as the high end ones but properly maintained it will get you there. We don't call people who don't drive high end sports cars. people who drive car shaped objects so why the disparaging term for cheap bikes. My guess is most of us started on these bikes so why the shame.


----------



## festival (28 Jun 2011)

A young lady came in the shop today with an apollo phaze about 6 months old.
She was about 5'2" and had been sold a 20" model by our friends at halfrauds, used it 3 times a week to ride to collage and a little local use about town.

The breaks were completely knacked and the rest of the bike in a sorry state, partly her fault for not looking after it, but mainly poorly put together & just a substandard product. 

The point is, this bike is advertised as, 'Was £319.99 now £189.99' What a joke (she paid £219.99) and people are buying this rubbish and others like them thinking they are getting something worthwhile at a bargain price, while in fact if you compare wisely you are getting something worth about £150.

I know some people have a tight budget but how do you educate people away from these BSO's when you can get something like the giant revel 3, currently £240


----------



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Vintage bikes may well be more dangerous than modern bikes.
> BSO's have a reputation of failing very quickly after limited use. As for the car comparison a BSO would be like a brand new 4x4 being sold for a few £1000. Would you buy one of those?
> I know a few people who rode BSO's. Once they had ridden an entry level MTB they did not want to ride their bike again.



the point I am making is that these things are bikes not bike shaped objects eg you can get on them and ride them. I have only ever had chap bikes, never has one failed on me unless I have abused it by not maintaining it . I have never been a mountain biker so I can imagine that these cheap bikes may not be safe for mountains but I have never heard of a properly maintained bike failing as a runabout, and as a kid I used to go miles on my cheap bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Jun 2011)

Cheep does not a BSO make. Poor quality components and shody workmanship make a BSO.

I'm going to sleep now.


----------



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Cheep does not a BSO make. Poor quality components and shody workmanship make a BSO.
> 
> I'm going to sleep now.



goodnight sleep well


----------



## Cubist (28 Jun 2011)

Yep, you're failing to allow us the distinction between a good cheap bike, which we all recommend and endorse, and a crap bike with poor quality, poorly functioning components. Your posting style appears to be one of slightly confrontational inverted snobbery, in which case you are wasting your time on a generally informative, friendly and helpful forum. The bike snobs don't hang out here. You've sent Angel to bed which is a rarity to be honest. He did try to explain what we mean by the term!


----------



## summerdays (28 Jun 2011)

My biggest problem with BSO's are for children ... look at the ones locked up in your local school during the day ... some of them are appalling ... such as pink/purple painted wheel rims on which the brakes don't work or a child's bike with a seat post so short that you can only adjust the height of it by 1 inch - how few children are only going to grow one inch in the two of three years that we normally expect a bike to last.


----------



## rowan 46 (28 Jun 2011)

I admit to being slightly confrontational. In my defence I am slightly irritated by the term bso. If you mean rubbish bike say so and say why. I found the term in the forum sticky on acronyms It doesn't say bso is a bike made with inferior parts and is not fit for purpose. it just says bike shaped object and leaves the latitude for bike snobs to put their bit in. I have been cycling since I was a kid and admit I have not the expertise or experience of most of you. It is just that I think a bike is a bike. some are good some are bad but I don't think bso is a helpful term to new people the only use I can see is for bike snobs to look down their nose at cheap machines. It's a good bike or a bad bike but not a bso


----------



## jefmcg (29 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> [..]whenever I have asked others why they don't cycle,the majority answer that it's because [..] they can't be bothered.


I think this is the the thing: they don't realise how difficult it was to pedal and keep the bike in working order was because of their bike, and assume that bikes are the problem.

Should we call them POS bikes?

EDIT: though this thread does suggest that the acronym list could do with some editing


----------



## Nebulous (29 Jun 2011)

I don't have an issue with the term bso. Like you though I would have a problem if it was used purely to mean cheap. 

Like many words we all bring our own prejudices and agendas to the party. Take the phrase 4x4 for instance. To a farmer it often means a utilitarian vehicle which takes him places and in conditions where other vehicles would struggle. To an eco warrior it can mean a fully loaded high end vehicle used only for the school run. To many cyclists it means a bully who uses the size of their vehicle to intimidate. 

Here's some useful information on BSO's bike mechanic view here's a newspaper article about a problematic Asda ad own-goal ad 

I have also seen discussion about a TV programme highlighting the dangers of supermarket bikes, though I cannot find it at the moment. I've also seen a claim that the average supermarket bike travels about 45 miles in its lifetime, though why that is could be open to debate. 

I'm pretty much a reverse snob. I try to buy clothes without logos or labelling, and I have been quite dismayed at the cost of cycling since I took it up more seriously. Nevertheless I do have a concern about the fitness for purpose of many mass market bikes.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

I have to say that things have changed since I was a kid. when I was young most bikes were made in Britain by skilled workers to fairly strict quality controls. I imagine like everything else 90% of them are made in the pacific rim with most of the skilled workers making the more expensive machines. Leaving the cheaper ones being made by not so skilled workers. I certainly agree that cheap supermarket bikes are probably not suitable for mountain biking and bmx. 
Thanks to all who contributed I was reading another forum where it was clear that many of the cyclists who posted were brand tarts and bso is synonymous with bikes that are not from the named brands. I am delighted to find a forum that is friendly and welcoming to those of us who can't afford high end bikes ie: me. It's just I was a little dismayed to to see the same term in this forum and am glad to find out it's my misunderstanding this time


----------



## Lien Sdrawde (29 Jun 2011)

Are the Decathlon £100 mtb's considered BSO's as I was going to get my daughter one for her nearly 2 mile commute? Seems to have shimano bits on it?


----------



## ian turner (29 Jun 2011)

Lien Sdrawde said:


> Are the Decathlon £100 mtb's considered BSO's as I was going to get my daughter one for her nearly 2 mile commute? Seems to have shimano bits on it?


That was part of a £100 mountain bike review on the gadget show and was rated the best and decent value for money.

I reiterate my earlier observation about the large aldi/lidl cycling gear fan club on this forum. If they were bike snobs they'd be strictly assos.
How do you drive a bike ?I'm starting to suspect the OP is a :troll:


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I was afraid of that. Is it an appropriate acronym to have in a forum devoted to the furtherence of general cycling?



Yes. They're shite and I know because I had one. I went through three replacements and even the last one needed daily adjustment of the brakes and gears, and if I hadn't managed to get Halfords swapped for something proper I'd probably have thrown it in the Tees by now and never ridden a bike again out of sheer frustration.


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

Lien Sdrawde said:


> Are the Decathlon £100 mtb's considered BSO's as I was going to get my daughter one for her nearly 2 mile commute? Seems to have shimano bits on it?



Don't be distracted by the fact something has 'Shimano' in it. There is Shimano, and then there is Shimano if you see what I mean.

Best bet would be to look for some (independant) reviews on it or *ask in here*, you'll get an honest answer as to whether something is worth buying or not.

Though, the Decathlon bikes do have a good reputation.


----------



## chillyuk (29 Jun 2011)

I have an early model Ridgeback Adventure hybrid that I do a lot of miles on. The groupset on it is the same as found on most BSO's, ie, basic Shimano SIS and it has a steel frame and is fairly heavy. It does have indexed front and rear shifters but apart from that it fulfills the definition of a BSO, yet because it has the name Ridgeback on the frame that somehow makes it not a BSO.

I can see where Rowan 46 is coming from and I think that we tend not to differentiate those who want a bike to pop to the shops or half a mile to work but apart from that have very little interest in cycling and those who take cycling seriously. A £100 BSO will meet the needs of the former and a very fat wallet will meet the needs of the latter.


----------



## tyred (29 Jun 2011)

I own what would probably be termed a BSO, a 1990s Townsend MTB, very heavy with the cheapest available Shimano groupset from the time and plastic brakes. It works, I covered a few thousand miles on it (With slick tyres, rack and mudguards) without problems. I tend to keep it for the snow now and don't really ride it much but that's only because I've grown to love the old steel road bikes I seem to have collected and this or any other MTB is not really what I want to ride.

I see many people riding BSOs up and down the cycle path in this town everyday after work. They seem to be enjoying themselves. Should I go and tell them they can't possibly be enjoying their cycling as their bikes are heaps of cheap shoot? For this type of low intensity leisure cycling, I would personally recommend an old roadster but it down to personal preference and some like to have new things. MTBS also tend to have low gearing which can be a benefit to the unfit, something not really available on a rod-braked Raleigh.

Not everybody wants or needs (or can afford) a high end road bike and for someone who only wants to cycle a few miles at a time at a leisurely pace, these bikes are usually perfectly adequate. Yes, some of these, especially the ones with suspension are a total load of shoot but many of the more basic ones like my Townsend are perfectly serviceable.


----------



## StuartG (29 Jun 2011)

The question is whether these are bikes or imitation of a bike.

They usually boast what looks like impressive specification - and if you think that x+1 gears must be better than x (and if you know nothing about bikes why not?) which, as said here, means complicated components unable to withstand the stress. Result broken or unreliable and uncomfortable to ride. Likely to send a potential convert to cycling back to the bus or car. That's why we hate BSOs with avengeance.

You just can't make a £1000 27 gear suspension bike for £100. And I would NOT put a new or utility cyclist on a £1000 spec bike anyway.

The problem is that few retailers of any sort sell good basic bikes for city riding. Basic bike? - well no gears unless you need them (more areas than not are flat and no gears are easier for novices and give the most reliable cycling). Then hub gears if you do need them. Again requires almost no care and are easy to adjust. Takes cost right out. A simple reliable bike is possible for £100. Tescos just don't sell them. That's because few would choose them.

That's the crux of the problem - US. How we pre-educate ourselves to what's best before we buy and then have them available is an issue. Till then the best I can do is use the BSO moniker & abuse to all those £70 'great deals' that appear on Hotukdeals.com et al. I get abuse back but a few might get the message.


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

Found this on Gumtree, description says it all really


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Case closed m'lord 


abo said:


> Found this on Gumtree, description says it all really


----------



## Paulus (29 Jun 2011)

I think it says more about his son than the bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

You could be right.


Paulus said:


> I think it says more about his son than the bike.


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

Paulus said:


> I think it says more about his son than the bike.



Heh yeah maybe


----------



## exbfb (29 Jun 2011)

My wife recently learnt to cycle (at the age of 48) on a BSO.

She loves her BSO because of that.

She still struggles with hills and the gears cause a bit of consternation at this early stage. No matter, she can now cycle without falling off. I am not aware of when she will need more from a bike than the BSO currently provides. I will be more likely to work that out before she does, maybe not. This was a Gumtree purchase. 

My daughter's bike which is older than here (she's 9) is possibly a BSO as well, but she also loves here bike. It fits her, goes well and does what's required of it. It cost me £25 off gumtree, it's a Raleigh Shugo from some time last century. Between that and the wife's bike, I think I'm in to a total of about £50 at this point.

Yes, I have my new road bike, but with C2W, I could hardly say no. I'm just as attached to my gifted Diamondback which, being a gift, cost the square root of diddly squat. Not sure if this qualifies as a BSO these days, care even less.

A BSO is for life, not just for Christmas. As long as you feed it and oil it as required.


----------



## benb (29 Jun 2011)

exbfb said:


> My wife recently learnt to cycle (at the age of 48) on a BSO.
> 
> She loves her BSO because of that.
> 
> ...



Therefore it's not a BSO.


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

benb said:


> Therefore it's not a BSO.



+1 they sound like they've never needed anything but regular maintenance; they are fit for purpose (being ridden without falling to bits) so they aren't BSOs


----------



## HLaB (29 Jun 2011)

I think I would categorise my first bike when I got back into cycling as a near BSO; it weighed a ton and was very cheap (about £150 punt/ 220euro iirc), no bosses, grip shift but other than the usual new chain/ cassette break pads, cables and tyres it never needed, much except for a new brake lever. Picked it up and when I dropped it p1$$ed I decided to walk home


----------



## ianrauk (29 Jun 2011)

BSO's are bikes from supermarkets that cost next to nothing, more often then not full suss bikes with crap components made out of cheese ie plastic brake levers, wrong way round front forks, untrue wheels, nasty saddles.

It's nothing to do with the person who rides one, it's the bike itself.
There's very little wrong if someone wants to buy/ride a BSO. But as long as people don't expect the bike to last. Some people are quite happy riding them. Handy for pub/shop hacks etc. And if they help get more people on bikes then that is a good thing.

It's nothing to do with snobbery.


----------



## mightyquin (29 Jun 2011)

If someone doesn't 'know' about bikes, then it's easy to see why they might not understand what the difference is between a BSO and a proper bike. I'm not being a snob because I don't know that much myself, but I'm learning.

If that someone wants a bike, probably thinking about using it for a bit of running about on sunny weekends, and sees a 'mountain' bike for £99 in the supermarket, or something that looks very similar in the LBS shop window for £500, they'll probably think "why pay more" and buy the BSO.

Of course, you do get what you pay for, but to a novice it's not immediately obvious where the extra £'s have gone. Wheels are wheels, brakes are brakes etc. etc.

Someone gave me a Decathlon 'mountain' bike recently. It's pretty much new, abandoned in their communal garage. Stuck some new tyres on it and gave it a clean and it's my beater bike, to take out when I don't want to worry about where I leave it. Bloody heavy and clunky though!


----------



## Black Sheep (29 Jun 2011)

Adasta said:


> It's not snobbery. Snobbery would be looking down on someone for riding a steel-framed 80s number while you're riding some super-lightweight carbon job.




My steel '60's road bike is about the same weight or lighter than a friend's carbon build 



summerdays said:


> It isn't the price that defines a BSO ... it is the imitation of a bike ... cheap working maintainable bikes are fine ... ones which are made of extremely poor quality materials or design are BSO's.



cheap bikes with no suspension tend to be fine, some are heavier than others. 

its when you start getting bikes with full suspension for £100 when, if you go into an independent bike shop they start at £800+ you have to surely ask yourself where they've cut costs to build a bike with suspension so cheap. the answer is it's built like a victorian station roof and budget components that will wear out quickly, the main ones being the bushings on the back end which will allow the rear bit of frame that moves to slop around all over the place making gear set up near impossible. 

also, if you look, the pivot point on most of them is infront of the cranks, meaning there is no rear suspension when you are stood up / have weight on the pedals.


----------



## Jezston (29 Jun 2011)

A colleague of mine has just bought a rather suspicious looking bike from Amazon. It's a road bike of unknown brand with unknown brand components, and was apparently £3xx reduced to £120. It has grip shifters for goodness sake. Grip shifters on drop bars I tell you!

However his plan is to ride it into the ground until he knows exactly what he wants out of a bike. 

Fair enough. I just hope it doesn't prove to be too disasterous.


----------



## benb (29 Jun 2011)

Jezston said:


> A colleague of mine has just bought a rather suspicious looking bike from Amazon. It's a road bike of unknown brand with unknown brand components, and was apparently £3xx reduced to £120. It has grip shifters for goodness sake. Grip shifters on drop bars I tell you!
> 
> However his plan is to ride it into the ground *until he knows exactly what he wants out of a bike.*
> 
> Fair enough. I just hope it doesn't prove to be too disasterous.



I suspect the answer to that question will turn out to be "not that"


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (29 Jun 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> also, if you look, the pivot point on most of them is infront of the cranks, meaning there is no rear suspension when you are stood up / have weight on the pedals.



Sorry Black Sheep would you say the Santa Cruz Superlight has no rear suspension when you are stood up / have weight on the pedals?


----------



## Bicycle (29 Jun 2011)

The more people scream that it isn't snobbery, the more most readers are nodding, smiling and saying to themselves: "Aaah... so it *is* snobbery then".

As soon as you have a range of products available from various manufacturers across a wide price range, you will have snobbery, almost always dressed up as something else.

In the '80s it was food enthusiasts buying Philippe Starck citrus juicers and Dualit toasters...

This decade it's Campag and friends.

I no longer ride a BSO, but I bought a few from various US PXs several years ago and used them as funbikes, commuters and occasionally as 90-km road-ride vehicles. I was living/working in South East Europe at the time and my bicycles were at home in the UK.

The BSOs in question were called Huffy something-or-others (HT MTB-a-likes) and were US$79.99 each at the PX on the base where I worked.

They were certainly BSOs by the definitions given here, but for what I needed they were fine.

I was no less keen a cyclist then than I am now. My local repair man hated the Huffys, as the wheels were made of cheese and the brakes were made of yogurt, but they did what they did and got me around. 

When a BSO (ghastly term) is all you need, then a BSO is fine.

If you are a snob, embrace being one and stop pretending. You fool no-one, not even yourself.


----------



## summerdays (29 Jun 2011)

As someone who has owned a BSO and hated it ... (though it did reintroduce me to cycling whilst being awful), and who gets asked by parents at school to try and adjust their kid's BSO ... I don't think it is a snob thing ... it certainly isn't it's monetary value ... I have admired one child's bike that was from a skip when he was getting mocked for that by his classmates. 

If I'm a classed as a snob for wanting something that does what it is meant to do (like being able to stop without having to use your feet, or the wheel's ball bearings turning to powder after less than 100 miles) then I don't mind being called a snob.


----------



## Jezston (29 Jun 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The more people scream that it isn't snobbery, the more most readers are nodding, smiling and saying to themselves: "Aaah... so it *is* snobbery then".



Only if you aren't giving people the common decency to actually pay attention to what they are saying.

Repeatedly, people have said no there is nothing inherently wrong with cheap bikes. There are plenty cheap bikes out there that whilst not assembled from the lightest, most efficient and snazziest components, they are generally well designed to fit around the price bracket aimed for, are acceptably put together and should get you from a to b in a reasonably comfortable fashion. And with care, they'll last.

Then there are the BSOs. They are dreadfully constructed compromised designs that non-bike retailers buy for a pittance (typically around £15 per bike. Seriously) that they con customers into thinking are a good deal by coming up with nonsense discounts like "Reduced from "£299 to £99!", are made from shoddy designed parts which the only consideration has been cheap cheap cheap. Components that should be made of metal like derailleurs are made of _plastic_. They typically fall apart within months, and are often dangerous to ride.

Get it?


----------



## Bicycle (29 Jun 2011)

Jezston said:


> Only if you aren't giving people the common decency to actually pay attention to what they are saying.
> ...
> 
> Then there are the BSOs. They are dreadfully constructed compromised designs that non-bike retailers buy for a pittance (typically around £15 per bike. Seriously) that they con customers into thinking are a good deal by coming up with nonsense discounts like "Reduced from "£299 to £99!", are made from shoddy designed parts which the only consideration has been cheap cheap cheap. Components that should be made of metal like derailleurs are made of _plastic_. They typically fall apart within months, and are often dangerous to ride.
> ...




Yes, I think I get the distinction... just about. Thanks for that. 

The Huffy I described was 100% 'BSO'... I make no bones about it. I was pretty explicit about how ghastly it was.

I still think that deriding these sweatshop chuckaways is snobbery. So do many, many other people.

I rode those Huffys with pleasure and with gusto during a posting because it was cheap, convenient and hassle-free to do so. 

When at home I ride (as do my wife and children) lovely Campag-equipped whizzers dripping with the casual snobbery of the enthusiast. 

Many of my acquantances ride around on what some refer to as BSOs. They're not BSOs. They're bicycles.

They're ghastly, but they're bicycles. 

It's gratifying to poke fun at far-eastern rubbish - and can fill one with bristling kudos if the "poorly built death trap" angle can be slotted in there too.

But to many, many people it's still snobbery.


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Jun 2011)

I ride a £180 Apollo, which some would call a BSO. I've had no problems with it so far, commute daily, and take longer rides on weekends. Therefore, to me, it isn't a BSO, just a cheap bike. Far from putting me off cycling, it's really helped me get into it, and I'm sure I'll upgrade to something a bit better before long. 

It has to be said though - people on here aren't snobby. They've been very helpful to me.


----------



## Cubist (29 Jun 2011)

No, Apollos aren't BSOs. They are cheap bikes. They work when properly assembled. A BSO is the sort of thing sold by places that aren't bike shops, or don't pretend to be. British Eagle at Asda, Dunlop whatever at Le Cod Sportif, sorry, Sportworld Direct, the indescribably woeful things that the local cash Generator has in at the moment, where the "suspension" units are undamped springs on a heavy steel Y frame, the brakes are soft alloy with plastic levers.... your Apollo will be perfectly serviceable in comparison.

The 1980s steel MTB argument is a red-herring. they were perfectly good serviceable bikes at the time. That they are old or outdated in terms of technology doesn't make tehm bad bikes. 

The sort of thing Summerdays is asked to adjust in the school bikesheds (ping Fnaar) will have gearshifters that will cannot be turned by the hand of a year five or six, and brakes that will not stop without assistance from a pair of size four plimsolls.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

My main problem is the term BSO as it is inexact and doesn't state what the problem with them is. Most of us agree that it's not price that is the problem nor where they are made as probably 90% of the worlds bikes are made in the pacific rim or components scourced there. Most of them will get you from a to b. The problem is that mountain bikes are made which are not safe to go down mountains MBSO?, touring bikes not fit for touring TBSO? et al however most of these bikes will get you to the shop or locally to work. you sit on them you pedal they move it's a bike not a bike shaped object and the fact is probably 90% of the cycling population use these things. Most of us probably used these things before we got into serious cycling so it can be argued that these things encourage take up of cycling rather than discourage it. So I would argue they are bikes, not good ones but they get you from a-b. I think we all agree they are not good at their job but they work. I started on a bso most of the people I know ride one. I think we should show them a bit of respect and drop the term because it does smack of elitism it serves no use other than to alienate people and encourage a belief that kit is more important than cycling. The fact is the person who uses a bike on a half hour commute is as much a cyclist as somebody who rides 70 miles and shouldn't be disparaged cos its not the best kit. my daughter uses a cheap mountain style bike to get to school it gets her there and back safely it's a bike not a bike shaped object and because she rides a bike that makes her a cyclist. not as serious as me or certainly you, but it strikes me if eveybody rode their bikes to work or school we wouldn't have a problem with cars. We all have a problem with bikes not fit for purpose but the term BSO isn't the best term to decribe this state of affairs.


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (29 Jun 2011)

Whether the user of the term is a snob or not, I think it is hard to deny that it is a mockery.

So the question then, is whether we should mock the object, and therefore potentially the user/owner, who is a fellow cyclist, whose circumstances we might or might not know about.

Even if some bikes deserve to be mocked, the intrinsic problem of the term is it gives no clue why - and how do we answer the question which bike is a BSO and which bike is not? I think someone suggested supermarket bikes are, what about Apollos - are they all BSOs while no Carrera is? What about the numerous unknown brand bikes? Is there a price/weight threshold to qualify? If it is not price/weight what are the parameters/features and how to assess, and by whom? What about really old, beaten up, neglected bikes that are unsafe? Is a BSO that I have spent £30 on replacement parts and time fettling still a BSO and if not how could you tell?

Imho, it is not a useful term.


----------



## exbfb (29 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> My main problem is the term BSO as it is inexact and doesn't state what the problem with them is. Most of us agree that it's not price that is the problem nor where they are made as probably 90% of the worlds bikes are made in the pacific rim or components scourced there. Most of them will get you from a to b. The problem is that mountain bikes are made which are not safe to go down mountains MBSO?, touring bikes not fit for touring TBSO? et al however most of these bikes will get you to the shop or locally to work. you sit on them you pedal they move it's a bike not a bike shaped object and the fact is probably 90% of the cycling population use these things. Most of us probably used these things before we got into serious cycling so it can be argued that these things encourage take up of cycling rather than discourage it. So I would argue they are bikes, not good ones but they get you from a-b. I think we all agree they are not good at their job but they work. I started on a bso most of the people I know ride one. I think we should show them a bit of respect and drop the term because it does smack of elitism it serves no use other than to alienate people and encourage a belief that kit is more important than cycling. The fact is the person who uses a bike on a half hour commute is as much a cyclist as somebody who rides 70 miles and shouldn't be disparaged cos its not the best kit. my daughter uses a cheap mountain style bike to get to school it gets her there and back safely it's a bike not a bike shaped object and because she rides a bike that makes her a cyclist. not as serious as me or certainly you, but it strikes me if eveybody rode their bikes to work or school we wouldn't have a problem with cars. We all have a problem with bikes not fit for purpose but the term BSO isn't the best term to decribe this state of affairs.




+1

Any activity you care to mention there are enthusiasts and people to whom it is less important, they just get on with it instead, because it's not really that important to them.
MYySquier Jazz bass is just as precious to me as my Jaydee was or any of my Status basses were. See, I turned all anoraky about something else there, to which at least some of you wouldn't have got. 
One boutique, one BSO (Bass shaped object.)


----------



## Sonofpear (29 Jun 2011)

To be honest I think your taking it way too seriously.


----------



## marshmella (29 Jun 2011)

abo said:


> Found this on Gumtree, description says it all really



This , i believe is sold in Sports Direct...nuff said! But having said that a colleague at work has always bought bikes in the £90-120 bracket, his current ride is a full susser from Tesco (he only ever rides double bouncers).This guy to his credit rides all year all weather then just chucks the bike a year later and gets another Asda/Tesco/Toys R us bike.


----------



## Bman (29 Jun 2011)

There are BSO's and there are decent bikes. People can enjoy riding either of them. I have.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

Sonofpear said:


> To be honest I think your taking it way too seriously.



And I think you don't take it seriously enough. This is a term that is used on some forums (not so much here) to put down anybody who doesn't have kit they don't like. the fact that some people are joining this thread and saying is my bike a bso? suggests that it is not a sufficiently clear term. The attitude that it's the persons fault for being offended by it isn't helpful adds nothing to the debate which has been reasoned on both sides. If you don't care about it don't join the thread. if you do care say something useful


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

marshmella said:


> then just chucks the bike a year later and gets another Asda/Tesco/Toys R us bike.


Terrible waste of resources!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

A cheep bike does not have to be a BSO - Some great quality bikes for little money.
A BSO is always very cheep
A heavy bike does not have to be a BSO - Downhill MTB are extremely heavy.
A BSO is very heavy
A low spec'd bike is not necessarily a BSO - A £1500 titanium Van Nichols will have a mediocre group set on it Shimano LX for e.g.)
A BSO will be very low spec'd.

Bottom line nearly all BSO's are a nightmare to ride, stop and change gear on. For a little more money your riding experience will improve a 100 fold.


----------



## marshmella (29 Jun 2011)

abo said:


> Terrible waste of resources!



The factory is littered with his old bikes, he 'll occasionally whip a bit off one of them to replace something that fell off on the way to work!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Please keep in mind that this is a cycling forum. People here will find it hard to get excited about a £70 bike from Toys R Us but may well shower praise on a 1990's steel frame Kona or new Decathlon. All forums have initialisations and acronyms that need to be learned and understood (I spend weeks trying to work out what a port was on a photography forum before I realised it was a portfolio. To me a port is either a place where a ship docks or an accept point for a computer). 



rowan 46 said:


> And I think you don't take it seriously enough. This is a term that is used on some forums (not so much here) to put down anybody who doesn't have kit they don't like. the fact that some people are joining this thread and saying is my bike a bso? suggests that it is not a sufficiently clear term. The attitude that it's the persons fault for being offended by it isn't helpful adds nothing to the debate which has been reasoned on both sides. If you don't care about it don't join the thread. if you do care say something useful


----------



## al78 (29 Jun 2011)

A good motoring analogy can be found here.

There is a good article on the subject here


----------



## ian turner (29 Jun 2011)

Try checking out some of the other TLAs. 

Such as LBS.

On this forum they like to encourage you to use your LBS.
Small cycling shops that aren't part of a chain, don't sell groceries or cheap gold jewellery and will be a necessity
to those folks who have problems with the bikes they bought from non specialist stores lacking any repair facilities.

An LBS won't sell BSOs. 
Don't argue that taking BSOs to be repaired by them helps support them. The sight of one coming into their shop probably depresses them.


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I ride a £180 Apollo, which some would call a BSO. I've had no problems with it so far, commute daily, and take longer rides on weekends. Therefore, to me, it isn't a BSO, just a cheap bike. Far from putting me off cycling, it's really helped me get into it, and I'm sure I'll upgrade to something a bit better before long.
> 
> It has to be said though - people on here aren't snobby. They've been very helpful to me.



The guy who runs the charity draw for my local youth football team rides around the whole of Stockton, every week on an Apollo Vortice like you. We were chatting about it the last time he came around, he bought it because he had more expensive bike stolen while doing the round, ages ago so he bought a cheaper replacement for doing his round.

He says it has never missed a beat and to be fair, I've always seen him riding it. It does what he needs it to without breaking on a regular basis. It is not a BSO, and neither is yours.

My Apollo(s) broke down all the time, and were a pita to ride because you never knew whether you were going to get back home with the bike in one piece. Definately BSOs.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

al78 said:


> A good motoring analogy can be found here.
> 
> There is a good article on the subject here



An interesting article nothing that's not been said here. The point I am trying to make though is that the nomenclature is inaccurate and unhelpful. On the above article the apollo is described as a bso a person on this thread has not found it to be so. the replies in the article are as divided as here. I maintain that it is the name that is the problem. Everybody can agree on what is a crap and dangerous bike, but not everybody can seem to agree on what the ambiguous name bso means.


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Jun 2011)

Cheers man, yeah it seems reasonable bit of kit for the money. Maybe I got lucky and found a Halford's that can set up a bike well. Or maybe it's because there's no suspension or owt on it, so they haven't had to scrimp too much on components. All I know is that it'll do me for now!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

I may be wrong but you are the only one who seems to have an issue with the term. I don't recall it being discussed to this length before.


rowan 46 said:


> An interesting article nothing that's not been said here. The point I am trying to make though is that the nomenclature is inaccurate and unhelpful. On the above article the apollo is described as a bso a person on this thread has not found it to be so. the replies in the article are as divided as here. I maintain that it is the name that is the problem. Everybody can agree on what is a crap and dangerous bike, but not everybody can seem to agree on what the ambiguous name bso means.


----------



## summerdays (29 Jun 2011)

Across the board there are lots of different personal taste's in bikes - nobody is saying that one particular version of a bike is the perfect one. We use terms such as BSO which does mean different things to each of us - but it is a short word to give a quick impression. Have you a suggestion for an alternative word/expression that would offend you less but still having the same general meaning? Because there are bikes out there that deserve to be put in the dump or better still recycled.

I have also been in a LBS when a bike that I would class as a BSO was brought in and they refused to service it - saying it wasn't worth spending lots of money on which they explained politely to the customer.


----------



## Nebulous (29 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> An interesting article nothing that's not been said here. The point I am trying to make though is that the nomenclature is inaccurate and unhelpful. On the above article the apollo is described as a bso a person on this thread has not found it to be so. the replies in the article are as divided as here. I maintain that it is the name that is the problem. Everybody can agree on what is a crap and dangerous bike, but not everybody can seem to agree on what the ambiguous name bso means.



You are labouring the point and you aren't listening. You've had an experience you didn't like on another forum so you've came on here and gone on the attack about it. It is beginning to look suspiciously like a troll. 

BSO is a loaded term. It will mean different things to different people. So do many other words that we use regularly. The problem isn't with the term, but with the value we imbue it with.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I may be wrong but you are the only one who seems to have an issue with the term. I don't recall it being discussed to this length before.



I am not the only person with this point of view on the thread


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

As was just said you were offende by the use of the term on one forum and have now tried to cause grief on this one. Move on :troll: 


rowan 46 said:


> I am not the only person with this point of view on the thread


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

Nebulous said:


> You are labouring the point and you aren't listening. You've had an experience you didn't like on another forum so you've came on here and gone on the attack about it. It is beginning to look suspiciously like a troll.
> 
> BSO is a loaded term. It will mean different things to different people. So do many other words that we use regularly. The problem isn't with the term, but with the value we imbue it with.



I quite agree it is a loaded term and I do apologise if it comes across as trolling I assure you that is not my intent. Its just that this is a friendly and helpful forum and I wished to point out bso is a less than friendly and helpful term. There must be a better one that is less ambiguous and describes the bikes we mean better.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As was just said you were offende by the use of the term on one forum and have now tried to cause grief on this one. Move on :troll:



I apologise if I have caused you any grief sorry honestly not my intent


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

BSO is much better than A Crap Bike or worthless piece of shoot. The term is understood and accepted by 99.9% of members so I would suggest living with it.


rowan 46 said:


> I quite agree it is a loaded term and I do apologise if it comes across as trolling I assure you that is not my intent. Its just that this is a friendly and helpful forum and I wished to point out bso is a less than friendly and helpful term.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Many people have taken the time to explain the meaning of the term but for whatever reason you will not accept it as valid. Do you ride a BSO per chance?


rowan 46 said:


> I apologise if I have caused you any grief sorry honestly not my intent


----------



## Nebulous (29 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I quite agree it is a loaded term and I do apologise if it comes across as trolling I assure you that is not my intent. Its just that this is a friendly and helpful forum and I wished to point out bso is a less than friendly and helpful term. There must be a better one that is less ambiguous and describes the bikes we mean better.



Well I don't cope very well with people telling me what language I should or shouldn't use. I often found myself in conflict at school (many years ago) with teachers who tried to tell me what to think and how to describe it. 

I work in an arena where values are very important, and I have seen people who are sound caring people mocked and ridiculed because their language isn't PC although their values are good. Some people mix up the values with how they are expressed, and assume thoughts and words are one and the same thing. They aren't.


----------



## rowan 46 (29 Jun 2011)

summerdays said:


> Across the board there are lots of different personal taste's in bikes - nobody is saying that one particular version of a bike is the perfect one. We use terms such as BSO which does mean different things to each of us - but it is a short word to give a quick impression. Have you a suggestion for an alternative word/expression that would offend you less but still having the same general meaning? Because there are bikes out there that deserve to be put in the dump or better still recycled.
> 
> I have also been in a LBS when a bike that I would class as a BSO was brought in and they refused to service it - saying it wasn't worth spending lots of money on which they explained politely to the customer.



My suggestion is a change to the definition in the sticky perhaps BSO bike shaped object a dangerous cheap bike not fit for purpose


----------



## Herzog (30 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> My suggestion is a change to the definition in the sticky perhaps BSO bike shaped object a dangerous cheap bike not fit for purpose



Yes - or we could commission a European-wide study of leading semanticists to nail this for good!


----------



## Bicycle (30 Jun 2011)

(thinks while strolling away whimsically with hands behind back, whistling to lend an air of innocence)

*I still think there's a whiff of snobbery or imagined intellectual superiority about the phrase.


*


----------



## Jezston (30 Jun 2011)

Bicycle said:


> (thinks while strolling away whimsically with hands behind back, whistling to lend an air of innocence)
> 
> *I still think there's a whiff of snobbery or imagined intellectual superiority about the phrase.
> 
> ...



I think there's a whiff of snobbery or imagined intellectual superiority about your behaviour on this thread.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Jezston said:


> I think there's a whiff of snobbery or imagined intellectual superiority about your behaviour on this thread.


----------



## ian turner (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Many people have taken the time to explain the meaning of the term but for whatever reason you will not accept it as valid. Do you ride a BSO per chance?



Way back in the mists of time (yesterday) he mentioned that he has only DRIVEN bike shaped objects from Argos and the like.

DRIVEN ?

Even a motorcyclist troll would say ridden.

I suggest we get back to important discussions such as the merits of helmet use  

Someone lock this thread


----------



## 4F (30 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> My suggestion is a change to the definition in the sticky perhaps BSO bike shaped object a dangerous cheap bike not fit for purpose



My suggestion is that you accept the term BSO for what the majority of the rest accept it is.

ie

shoot heavy bike with components made of cheese sold in the likes of Asda, Tesco, Littlewoods and a certain couple of brands at Halfords


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Very true - I think we should agree :troll: alert 


ian turner said:


> Way back in the mists of time (yesterday) he mentioned that he has only DRIVEN bike shaped objects from Argos and the like.
> 
> DRIVEN ?
> 
> ...


----------



## tyred (30 Jun 2011)

But do users of top of the range helmets view helmets from Tesco's as HSOs?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

A very good point. Maybe a sun forum is required?. 


tyred said:


> But do users of top of the range helmets view helmets from Tesco's as HSOs?


----------



## Mad at urage (30 Jun 2011)

tyred said:


> But do users of top of the range helmets view helmets from Tesco's as HSOs?


Surely all helmets are HSOs? They are objects and shaped like helmets  .


----------



## Bicycle (30 Jun 2011)

Jezston said:


> I think there's a whiff of snobbery or imagined intellectual superiority about your behaviour on this thread.




Ouch!

First charge: I pleaded guilty in an earlier posting on this topic, quoted below.

"When at home I ride (as do my wife and children) lovely Campag-equipped whizzers dripping with the casual snobbery of the enthusiast." 

If you're looking for a confession, I think that might be it. Not all bicycle snobs are so quick to confess. 

Second charge: You may well be right. I hope I haven't ever made personal comments on this forum about other posters. I'm pretty sure I haven't.

I might let this topic go now. Still whistling, but now whilst trying to stifle a giggle.


----------



## summerdays (30 Jun 2011)

I'm disappointed that you think it is funny ... for me BSO's make me angry because shops are even allowed to sell them in the first place. It isn't the fault of the person who buys them whether due to funds or lack of knowledge. 

If you buy a BSO knowing it is one and prepared to try and use your skill to maintain/improve it that is fine ... but bicycles should be fit for the purpose without having to upgrade/replace components to make them work - as many of the people who do buy them don't have that knowledge/skill.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I agree. To my knowledge cars have to meet a minimum criteria before being allowed to be sold in this country. I wish it was the same for bikes.


summerdays said:


> I'm disappointed that you think it is funny ... for me BSO's make me angry because shops are even allowed to sell them in the first place. It isn't the fault of the person who buys them whether due to funds or lack of knowledge.
> 
> If you buy a BSO knowing it is one and prepared to try and use your skill to maintain/improve it that is fine ... but bicycles should be fit for the purpose without having to upgrade/replace components to make them work - as many of the people who do buy them don't have that knowledge/skill.


----------



## Alembicbassman (30 Jun 2011)

£100 can buy you a great bike second hand. Many people spend £200+ on a half decent bike, ride it a few times and then sell it for £100. I've seen loads of nearly new bikes on ebay from Giant, Trek, Specialized for £100. They are mostly the Hybrid type bikes with 700c wheels and low end Shimano components, but still far superior to the stuff knocked out by Asda etc..

Many of these BSOs appear for sale as job lots on ebay because they have been returned to the retailer as faulty and passed to wholesalers to dispose of.

This week I saw a super 1990s Raleigh Elan (one owner from new) Reynolds 501 lugged frame sell for £60

1980s Raleigh Clubman 531 tubes and forks £60

Proper bikes for no money


----------



## tyred (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I agree. To my knowledge cars have to meet a minimum criteria before being allowed to be sold in this country. I wish it was the same for bikes.



There must already be some sort of standard. A few of my bikes have "meets with BS ?????" type stickers so there must be a British standard which they need to meet.


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Jun 2011)

I am going to say my last words on this subject you will be pleased to hear as I agree with most of you it's going nowhere. But first I would like to apologise to Sonofpear as my reply was rude. I am genuinely sorry I replied so rudely you didn't deserve it and I apologise unreservedly. 
I am somewhat embarressed about using the term "driven" in the heat of battle I misspoke myself now as to the rest it maybe that you do not use the term bso to to be bike snobs but it certainly is used in that connection by many in the cycling community. You don't agree that it's an inexact term. I respect that view you have the right to it as I have the right to mine. I opened the question out for discussion and it has been discussed. Those of you who are offended I apologise . 
This is a forum for discussing cycling matters and this discussion did fall into that purview but to be accused of trolling because I have a different view to many of you ah well. I do ride a bso its a specialized sirrus sport I have only had it a couple of months and I ride it for pleasure the Bso I use for work is a viking trekking bike It gets left out in the rain and generally abused but it gets me safely from a-b. again apologies to those who are offended I thought it started as an interesting discussion. I have ridden a bike for 40 years and no longer do long distances or ride fast but I am still a cyclist and I do not apologise for not having the money to buy high end cycles.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I would never call anything made by specialized a BSO. Would anyone else here do so?


rowan 46 said:


> I do ride a bso its a specialized sirrus sport


----------



## tyred (30 Jun 2011)

Alembicbassman said:


> £100 can buy you a great bike second hand. Many people spend £200+ on a half decent bike, ride it a few times and then sell it for £100. I've seen loads of nearly new bikes on ebay from Giant, Trek, Specialized for £100. They are mostly the Hybrid type bikes with 700c wheels and low end Shimano components, but still far superior to the stuff knocked out by Asda etc..
> 
> Many of these BSOs appear for sale as job lots on ebay because they have been returned to the retailer as faulty and passed to wholesalers to dispose of.
> 
> ...


I've just bought a prestine Peugeot Carbolite 12 speed with indexed gears for £25. It looks like a brand new bike despite being at least 20 years old, everything works and with a full re-lube and possibly replacement tyres as the originals are a bit perished, I hope to sell it on with a few quid profit. It should give someone a good few years of reliable cycling. It's pretty light and reponsive as well, more so than I was expecting.


----------



## Rob3rt (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would never call anything made by specialized a BSO. Would anyone else here do so?



I'd call them ugly in many cases (sorry to the Specialized riders, nothing wrong with the bikes at all, I just dont like the aesthetics on most of them), but not a BSO no, very good bikes.

As for the Viking, not heard much about them, seen a few around but no personal experience nor even a close up look.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

A quick search revealed this.

BS6102-1 - The standard only applies to complete bicycles at the point of sale, and you can legally remove anything that it specifies once you've wheeled the bike out of the shop. None of it applies to recumbents of course, because it's for bikes of "saddle height" 635mm or greater.

*BS 6102-1* is written to ensure that bikes made to this Standard will be as safe as possible. Tests are written to make sure that the components and the bike itself are strong and will last. This does not include all bikes such as mountain bikes which obviously take a lot more stress and strain than normal bikes. They have their own standard (see below).

Specifications and tests include those for:


frames, pedals, saddles, chains, chain guards, lighting and reflectors, brakes, instructions, wheels, tyres.
 *Two clauses (sections) in detail (taken from the 1992 version of BS 6102-1)*
Clause 15. Lighting and reflectors:


15.2.1 Rear reflectors - all bikes must have red rear reflectors
15.2.2 Side reflectors - the reflectors on wheel spokes should be two sided and be fitted within 10cm of the outside rim. They must be either yellow or white
15.2.3 Front reflectors - bicycles with front lights do not need front reflectors. Those without front lights must have a white/clear reflector
15.2.4 Pedal reflectors - bikes must have yellow reflectors on the pedals.
 Clause 19. Instructions
Every bike should come with a set of instructions. These should include:


how to make adjustments to seat height etc
how, where, and how often to lubricate
how to adjust the gears
how to use accessories (where included), maintenance requirements and spares
recommendations on safe riding, for example regular checks on brakes and caution when braking in the wet.



tyred said:


> There must already be some sort of standard. A few of my bikes have "meets with BS ?????" type stickers so there must be a British standard which they need to meet.


----------



## ianrauk (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would never call anything made by specialized a BSO. Would anyone else here do so?



Of course not no.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

and yet ironically the OP does ???


ianrauk said:


> Of course not no.


----------



## ianrauk (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> and yet ironically the OP does ???




The he/she will be the only one on this forum to think so


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

So very strange that the OP is offended by the term BSO and yet calls a very nice good quality bike a BSO????? Do I sniff a :troll:


ianrauk said:


> The he/she will be the only one on this forum to think so


----------



## Jezston (30 Jun 2011)

AFS: so basically the only standards bicycle manufacturers have to adhere to is that the bikes have reflectors on them?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Well there are others 

BS EN 14872 Luggage carriers for bicycles. (BS EN means that it's a European Standard and also a British Standard)

These are European Standards (also published as British Standards)that have been written for other types of bike -

BS EN 14764 Bicycles for use on public roads (includes city and trekking bikes)
BS EN 14766 Mountain-bicycles 
BS EN 14781 Racing bicycles
BS EN 14765 Bicycles for young children.

but it seems you have to shell out £94 to read them - See here



Jezston said:


> AFS: so basically the only standards bicycle manufacturers have to adhere to is that the bikes have reflectors on them?


----------



## Chris.IOW (30 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I do ride a bso its a specialized sirrus sport I have only had it a couple of months and I ride it for pleasure




You hadn't offended me until that point.

If you are calling Specialized bikes BSO's I think you have completly missed the point of what a BSO is despite many people here trying to explain it to you.

As for the far more valid points of the British standards, whilst these exist are they not voluntary codes, i.e. they only have to be adhered to if you sign up to the standard. It would be perfectly possible to still sell a bike that did not meet these standards. A compulsory standard as per car sales would seem more appropriate. (Unless I have misunderstood how the BS standards work)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Chris you raise a good point about the BS or EU standards being voluntary or not. It seems that the only one that must be adhered to is *BS 6102-1 which is basically the bike must be sold with reflectors* but you can legally remove them once it leaves the shop!!!



Chris.IOW said:


> You hadn't offended me until that point.
> 
> If you are calling Specialized bikes BSO's I think you have completly missed the point of what a BSO is despite many people here trying to explain it to you.
> 
> As for the far more valid points of the British standards, whilst these exist are they not voluntary codes, i.e. they only have to be adhered to if you sign up to the standard. It would be perfectly possible to still sell a bike that did not meet these standards. A compulsory standard as per car sales would seem more appropriate. (Unless I have misunderstood how the BS standards work)


----------



## Sonofpear (30 Jun 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I am going to say my last words on this subject you will be pleased to hear as I agree with most of you it's going nowhere. But first I would like to apologise to Sonofpear as my reply was rude. I am genuinely sorry I replied so rudely you didn't deserve it and I apologise unreservedly.
> I am somewhat embarressed about using the term "driven" in the heat of battle I misspoke myself now as to the rest it maybe that you do not use the term bso to to be bike snobs but it certainly is used in that connection by many in the cycling community. You don't agree that it's an inexact term. I respect that view you have the right to it as I have the right to mine. I opened the question out for discussion and it has been discussed. Those of you who are offended I apologise .
> This is a forum for discussing cycling matters and this discussion did fall into that purview but to be accused of trolling because I have a different view to many of you ah well. I do ride a bso its a specialized sirrus sport I have only had it a couple of months and I ride it for pleasure the Bso I use for work is a viking trekking bike It gets left out in the rain and generally abused but it gets me safely from a-b. again apologies to those who are offended I thought it started as an interesting discussion. I have ridden a bike for 40 years and no longer do long distances or ride fast but I am still a cyclist and I do not apologise for not having the money to buy high end cycles.



Thanks for the apology. It wasnt needed though. I just thought you were taking things a bit seriously. And from what I've read and seen on here there isn't any snobbery towards people regardless of what they ride. 
At the end of the day we all have our own opinions, and sometimes people agree and others don't. End of.


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Jun 2011)

My apologies about the bso crack I was joking and forgot to put the smiley in. both my my specialized and my viking are perfectly good bikes. although I have to confess the specialized is the better of the two


----------



## Sonofpear (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Chris you raise a good point about the BS or EU standards being voluntary or not. It seems that the only one that must be adhered to is *BS 6102-1 which is basically the bike must be sold with reflectors* but you can legally remove them once it leaves the shop!!!



My bike didn't come with any reflectors. Shocking!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Is it a racing bike?


Sonofpear said:


> My bike didn't come with any reflectors. Shocking!!!


----------



## Chris.IOW (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Chris you raise a good point about the BS or EU standards being voluntary or not. It seems that the only one that must be adhered to is *BS 6102-1 which is basically the bike must be sold with reflectors* but you can legally remove them once it leaves the shop!!!



I had my bike delivered as there were no local dealers. There were some reflectors but they were not attached they were in a box separately. I must confess that they never made it onto the bike!

I guess as they were in the box it complied with the standard!


----------



## Sonofpear (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Is it a racing bike?


It is


----------



## Mad at urage (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would never call anything made by specialized a BSO. Would anyone else here do so?


I would.  It is an object that is shaped like a bike, the fact that it is actually a bike (and some are quite good) makes it so! 

Bike sculptures are also BSOs (well, vaguely so in some cases).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I am pretty sure that they are exempt 


Sonofpear said:


> It is


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I would guess so  


Chris.IOW said:


> I had my bike delivered as there were no local dealers. There were some reflectors but they were not attached they were in a box separately. I must confess that they never made it onto the bike!
> 
> I guess as they were in the box it complied with the standard!


----------



## tyred (30 Jun 2011)

Is this a BSO?
It is an object shaped like a bike after all.


Strange frame geometry though.


----------



## blockend (30 Jun 2011)

I've never been keen on the BSO description. Lots of people start out on heavy bikes of uncertain provenance but if the moving parts revolve, the chain doesn't snap or the tyres deflate, the object is a bicycle and shares 99% of the DNA of a carbon Colnago team bike.

You're also much likelier to get a conversation that goes further than OLN dimensions and the mystical properties of tubing from a BSO rider. Very few bicycles are thoroughly bad, unfortunately the cheapest ones cut corners that are least likely to be remedied by their target consumer, so when something dies the whole bike dies with it.


----------



## Bicycle (30 Jun 2011)

"Is this a BSO?
It is an object shaped like a bike after all."



Of course it is! It's got BSO written all over it. (Not literally, of course).

What really saddens me in this instance is that the troll who assembled it has mounted the stem the wrong way round.

This sorry excuse for a bicycle will probably end up in the hands of a small, innocent child who will steer it nervously into traffic little realising that the wheels are held on only by sticky tape.

I hope the poor, innocent child who rides it will be wearing a helmet.

It will certainly save his or her life. Photos prove it.


----------



## Sonofpear (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am pretty sure that they are exempt



Damn I was gonna go to my lbs and demand my reflectors


----------



## chillyuk (30 Jun 2011)

Bicycle said:


> "Is this a BSO?
> It is an object shaped like a bike after all."




Nice one


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (30 Jun 2011)

tyred said:


> Is this a BSO?
> It is an object shaped like a bike after all.
> 
> Strange frame geometry though.



Nah. But my fixie is.

But damn, it has one hard saddle I tell ya!


----------



## apollo179 (30 Jun 2011)

I was totally oblivious of this snobbery till now. I feel that i should change my user name to hide my misfortune. Whats the name of a decent make of bike ? Just to think I regularly commute between london and watford on this thing and ive only now discovered that all the time ive been harbouring a BSO.


----------



## Fnaar (30 Jun 2011)

And there was me thinking BSO stood for Big Scary Oswaldwistlian. Doh!


----------



## Chris.IOW (30 Jun 2011)

Fnaar said:


> And there was me thinking BSO stood for Big Scary Oswaldwistlian. Doh!



I always had it down as Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, but then maybe I'm an initialism snob!!


----------



## Alembicbassman (30 Jun 2011)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> Nah. But my fixie is.
> 
> But damn, it has one hard saddle I tell ya!



Chain's a bit slack


----------



## Chris.IOW (30 Jun 2011)

The tide was out on the way home and I passed this....




I think even the OP will agree, this is a BSO.!!! 

Thread closed!


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (30 Jun 2011)

Alembicbassman said:


> Chain's a bit slack



Slack?  I did follow the instructions from Park Tools!


----------



## lukesdad (1 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So very strange that the OP is offended by the term BSO and yet calls a very nice good quality bike a BSO????? Do I sniff a :troll:


----------



## lukesdad (1 Jul 2011)

I can smell one and it aint the OP.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

So please tell us all who you think the Troll is.


lukesdad said:


> I can smell one and it aint the OP.


----------



## sunnyjim (1 Jul 2011)

I've just had a quick scan through BS EN 14764 (access conditions apply, so won't quote directly) It looks fairly thorough IMO, although not particulary onerous. ie front fork impact ~40J so might lose out to a headbut by 100J helmet... 

Frame fatigue test is 100000 cycles of 1000N on pedals with no fracture of frame. Say average 60 ins gear, that's about 100miles - I think I've seen numbers like that quoted as the average achieved life of a BSO.

1/2 mile to the shops & back every other tuesday on a flattish road, last for years - why spend more?

This is the problem with standards - defining the requirement. With lights, everyone is equal, with the whole bike, there isn't a single requirement, so they can only try limit the absolute minimum, which not surprsingly cost concious manufacturers treat as a target.

BS /EN gives purchacesr users a false sense of security. Maybe a star rating would help more.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

So if I read this correctly the minimum standard for a bike is that is must last for =>100 miles and forks must withstand a 49Jule impact?



sunnyjim said:


> I've just had a quick scan through BS EN 14764 (access conditions apply, so won't quote directly) It looks fairly thorough IMO, although not particulary onerous. ie front fork impact ~40J so might lose out to a headbut by 100J helmet...
> 
> Frame fatigue test is 100000 cycles of 1000N on pedals with no fracture of frame. Say average 60 ins gear, that's about 100miles - I think I've seen numbers like that quoted as the average achieved life of a BSO.
> 
> ...


----------



## lulubel (1 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I was totally oblivious of this snobbery till now. I feel that i should change my user name to hide my misfortune. Whats the name of a decent make of bike ? Just to think I regularly commute between london and watford on this thing and ive only now discovered that all the time ive been harbouring a BSO.



The bike that got me into cycling was an Apollo hybrid. It was blue, and I still have the matching blue helmet I bought. I cycled a 20 mile round trip commute on hilly country roads, in the rain and mud and dark on it, and the only problem I had was that the front brake tended to adjust itself so it was permanently on. I never managed to fix it (very limited mechanical ability here), so just carried an allen key with me for emergency roadside adjustments! Eventually, I decided I wanted a road bike and, after all that time getting the heavy Apollo frame up the hills, my legs were so strong I felt like I was flying.

My neighbour had the Apollo, and as far as I know she's still using it.


----------



## Chris S (1 Jul 2011)

I bought a Havoc Sabre of ebay for spares but its actually quite a good bike. My only complaint (apart from the chavey decals) is that the prop stand is far too short to be of any use.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

Prop stand? Do bike still have those? 


Chris S said:


> I bought a Havoc Sabre of ebay for spares but its actually quite a good bike. My only complaint (apart from the chavey decals) is that the prop stand is far too short to be of any use.


----------



## ian turner (1 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Prop stand? Do bike still have those?




A recent request on this very forum


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

It was a joke. I have seen loads of hybrids with them. I have also seem MTB's with the and that looks so very wrong.


ian turner said:


> A recent request on this very forum


----------



## sunnyjim (1 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So if I read this correctly the minimum standard for a bike is that is must last for =>100 miles and forks must withstand a 49Jule impact?




Correct. 
Frame held supported by back forks, front forks pointing upwards. Drop 22.5kg mass from 180mm on to forks. Check nothing fell off and no fractures or cracks visible (includes close examination eg dye but doesn't ask for detailed analysis, sections of welds etc). Maximum 30mm permanent set allowed for frame & forks. I calculate that's equivalent to riding into a brick wall at ~2.5 mph maybe a bit faster depending on tyres rider etc. So reconstituted cheese should be OK for front forks.

Fatigue - simulated pedaling with actual or representative cranks with chain or tie rod fixed to back forks. 45 deg pedal angle, 1000N alternate pushes. Same pass criteria.


There are other tests on handlebars, wheels, brakes, modified tests for frame or forks only, etc. I haven't look at these in detail. 

I haven't tried to work out the forces on a real bike when riding downhill, potholses etc, but the frame does seem to get off rather lightly. 



Review: Most enlightening read. 87pp Price for printed version perhaps a bit steep - even more than the cost of the bicycle it describes.


----------



## sunnyjim (1 Jul 2011)

lulubel said:


> The bike that got me into cycling was an Apollo hybrid. *It was blue*, and I still have the matching blue helmet I bought. I cycled a 20 mile round trip commute on hilly country roads, in the rain and mud and dark on it, and the only problem I had was that the front brake tended to adjust itself so it was permanently on. I never managed to fix it (very limited mechanical ability here), so just carried an allen key with me for emergency roadside adjustments! Eventually, I decided I wanted a road bike and, after all that time getting the heavy Apollo frame up the hills, my legs were so strong I felt like I was flying.
> 
> My neighbour had the Apollo, and as far as I know she's still using it.




Red bikes are faster than blue ones - you should know that by now.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

Wow. That is pretty scary. I would love it if Bikes had a form of NCAP rating.


sunnyjim said:


> Correct.
> Frame held supported by back forks, front forks pointing upwards. Drop 22.5kg mass from 180mm on to forks. Check nothing fell off and no fractures or cracks visible (includes close examination eg dye but doesn't ask for detailed analysis, sections of welds etc). Maximum 30mm permanent set allowed for frame & forks. I calculate that's equivalent to riding into a brick wall at ~2.5 mph maybe a bit faster depending on tyres rider etc. So reconstituted cheese should be OK for front forks.
> 
> Fatigue - simulated pedaling with actual or representative cranks with chain or tie rod fixed to back forks. 45 deg pedal angle, 1000N alternate pushes. Same pass criteria.
> ...


----------



## lulubel (1 Jul 2011)

sunnyjim said:


> Red bikes are faster than blue ones - you should know that by now.



I knew there was a very good reason why I should have bought a red road bike - just couldn't think of it at the time


----------



## Chris.IOW (1 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Wow. That is pretty scary. I would love it if Bikes had a form of NCAP rating.



NCAP would refer to the protection the car provides in the event of an impact, which is probably not as relevant to a bike I would think.

Very interesting reading about the British standard requirements, but I still query whether bikes we agree are BSO's would be produced by manufacturers who sign up for these standards. 

In many ways they are probably the very manufacturers that should be regulated in some way.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Jul 2011)

lulubel said:


> The bike that got me into cycling was an Apollo hybrid. It was blue, and I still have the matching blue helmet I bought. I cycled a 20 mile round trip commute on hilly country roads, in the rain and mud and dark on it, and the only problem I had was that the front brake tended to adjust itself so it was permanently on. I never managed to fix it (very limited mechanical ability here), so just carried an allen key with me for emergency roadside adjustments! Eventually, I decided I wanted a road bike and, after all that time getting the heavy Apollo frame up the hills, my legs were so strong I felt like I was flying.
> 
> My neighbour had the Apollo, and as far as I know she's still using it.



My apollo mb is orange so i guess thats faster than a blue equivalent but not as fast as the red version.
Bought mine for £16 of ebay about a year ago. Mechanically it seems ok. You do have to hang on the brakes to get any noticeable affect and ive ungraded to a schwalbe back tyre after repeated punctures. I carry a set of allen keys with me to tighten the next thing to come loose ( handle bar retaining bolt - crank arm bolt - rack supports etc etc)
My range is about 20miles so far and legs getting stronger. Hopefully a propa bike will materialise at some point. Must be nice cycling in spain - its like playing russian roulette with the rain here.


----------



## rowan 46 (1 Jul 2011)

I know I said last word but I couldn't resist this is a bso and definitely not a bike


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

That is so funny.


rowan 46 said:


> I know I said last word but I couldn't resist this is a bso and definitely not a bike


----------



## sunnyjim (1 Jul 2011)

sunnyjim said:


> Frame fatigue test is *100000 cycles *of 1000N on pedals with no fracture of frame. Say average *60 ins gear, that's about 100miles* - I think I've seen numbers like that quoted as the average achieved life of a BSO.


Woops- slipped on a pie - that's ~300 miles . Sooo much better.


----------



## smithy92 (2 Jul 2011)

Just been to Asda in Leigh, and seen 5 bikes on display (their entire range) all of which had the forks on backwards and the brakes not attached!

Just thought i'd mention it!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Jul 2011)

Does that mean the brakes would be behind and not in front of the forks?


smithy92 said:


> Just been to Asda in Leigh, and seen 5 bikes on display (their entire range) all of which had the forks on backwards and the brakes not attached!
> 
> Just thought i'd mention it!


----------



## apollo179 (3 Jul 2011)

This idea of bsos having the front forks are on back to front was refered to in the first page of this thread and i didnt understand it then. Can anyone explain.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> This idea of bsos having the front forks are on back to front was refered to in the first page of this thread and i didnt understand it then. Can anyone explain.



I can explain that:

It means the forks were mounted back to front.


----------



## Hip Priest (3 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> This idea of bsos having the front forks are on back to front was refered to in the first page of this thread and i didnt understand it then. Can anyone explain.




http://bicycleshaped...jpg?w=300&h=199 

Some actual ASDA promo material featuring a bike with the forks on backwards. Doh! Sorry, I'm not sure how to post it as an image. Which is probably the internet equivalent of not knowing which way round the forks go.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Jul 2011)

Gotcha - so the bike is conceptually sound its just that the forks have been put on the wrong way round. I thought maybe it involved a fundeamental design fault as opposed to just an assembly issue. Anyway thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Jul 2011)

and the v bakes would be facing towards the cyclist not away from him/her.


apollo179 said:


> Gotcha - so the bike is conceptually sound its just that the forks have been put on the wrong way round. I thought maybe it involved a fundeamental design fault as opposed to just an assembly issue. Anyway thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Jul 2011)

Remarkably for a forum like this, I think we've achieved complete unanimity.

We have 107% of contributors to this thread in complete agreement, as follows:

1. BSO is a term dripping with snobbery, smug self-satisfaction at knowing more than other people about bicycles and a generally clique-centred mindset that is exclusive of anyone who takes these things slightly less seriously.

2. That the above prejudice will be justified with stories along the lines of: 'My mate knew someone who rode a BSO and the chain ring sheared and killed a 3-day-old kitten'.

I congratulate us all for taking such a mature view on this tricky issue and coming to a clear consensus when it would have been easier to descend into a slanging match of opinionated drivel and unsubstantiated claims of ghastly hazards presented by 'so-called BSOs'.

A difficult argument avoided there. Well done all of us!

Hurrah!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Jul 2011)

That is not my interpretation of the threads majority possition.


Bicycle said:


> Remarkably for a forum like this, I think we've achieved complete unanimity.
> 
> We have 107% of contributors to this thread in complete agreement, as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## smithy92 (3 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo, correct, the brakes were rider side of the forks, as well as not being connected (one half of v-brake unclipped).

I seriously hope no future cyclist buys one and uses the display model as a guide for putting them together.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Jul 2011)

I suggest that this says more about the quality of the staff than it does about the bicycle. They would probably do the same with the latest super bicycle. So a picture of a bike with forks on back to front may indicate a lot of things ( untrained and uncaring staff , cheaper product) it does not definitively prove bso status.


----------



## Jezston (4 Jul 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Remarkably for a forum like this, I think we've achieved complete unanimity.
> 
> We have 107% of contributors to this thread in complete agreement, as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## Alembicbassman (4 Jul 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> http://bicycleshaped...jpg?w=300&h=199
> 
> Some actual ASDA promo material featuring a bike with the forks on backwards. Doh! Sorry, I'm not sure how to post it as an image. Which is probably the internet equivalent of not knowing which way round the forks go.




Asda are still doing it, took this a couple of weeks ago in a store


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Jul 2011)

That is just diabolical. The bike and the fact it has been put together incorrectly.


Alembicbassman said:


> Asda are still doing it, took this a couple of weeks ago in a store


----------



## Bicycle (4 Jul 2011)

I think we need to keep this in perspective. Last week my LBS tried to sell me an onion with the skin on inside-out. It was nothing more than an OSO!

The man was clearly not a fresh-produce expert and seemed cynically to have overlooked the potential hazard of eating an inside-out vegetable. 

A bicycle retailer has no place in the complex marketplace for food and domestic products. The attempt by my LBS to sell fresh foods was nothing short of diabolical!

The next question might be why on Earth anyone with half a brain would expect a bicycle retailer to know the first thing about food retail.

Similarly, why would anyone with half a brain (or more) expect a supermarket employee to know how to assemble a bicycle?

Despite my deeply held fundamentalist Christian beliefs, I find myself warming to the half-baked warblings of Mr Darwin in his heretical work on Natural Selection. Some people opt for extinction by their own enormous stupidity and complete lack of curiosity.

This BSO debate has given rise in me to a potentially devestating internal spiritual conflict.

Cripes!







Alembicbassman said:


> Asda are still doing it, took this a couple of weeks ago in a store


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Jul 2011)

If you buy a product from a respected shop you expect it to work. I know that the staff are not trained bike mechanics but if they are selling this stuff to an unknowing general population the shop must have an obligation to ensure the product is fit for purpose and set up correctly. Do they tell you to ensure the bike is checked by a mechanic before riding it? I very much doubt it. Maybe they should be stopped form selling such products until a few members of staff at each store are trained to at least a basic level.


Bicycle said:


> I think we need to keep this in perspective. Last week my LBS tried to sell me an onion with the skin on inside-out. It was nothing more than an OSO!
> 
> The man was clearly not a fresh-produce expert and seemed cynically to have overlooked the potential hazard of eating an inside-out vegetable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bicycle (4 Jul 2011)

It's OK. My LBS has stopped selling onions.

If he hadn't, I would have used your most recent post to persuade him so to do.



Angelfishsolo said:


> If you buy a product from a respected shop you expect it to work. I know that the staff are not trained bike mechanics but if they are selling this stuff to an unknowing general population the shop must have an obligation to ensure the product is fit for purpose and set up correctly. Do they tell you to ensure the bike is checked by a mechanic before riding it? I very much doubt it. Maybe they should be stopped form selling such products until a few members of staff at each store are trained to at least a basic level.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Jul 2011)

I'm glad about that 


Bicycle said:


> It's OK. My LBS has stopped selling onions.
> 
> If he hadn't, I would have used your most recent post to persuade him so to do.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2011)

French supermarket chains sell some lovely bikes, as do Austrian ones, and German ones too. In the UK the bikes are best placed on the cheese counter as it appears the frames and components are made of same.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Jul 2011)

GregCollins said:


> French supermarket chains sell some lovely bikes, as do Austrian ones, and German ones too. In the UK the bikes are best placed on the cheese counter as it appears the frames and components are made of same.


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jul 2011)

I wonder if there's a cheese forum, where connosieurs discuss the merits of cheap mass-market cheeses (Dairlylea, Laughing Cow) and whether they should be classed as Cheese-Shaped-Objects, or whether that term should be reserved only for Cheese Strings, which are in fact made from old bicycles.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Jul 2011)

Beyond the problem with incorrect assembly - is this bike a bso.
Or for £40 is it a fun bike for little johnny ?


Alembicbassman said:


> Asda are still doing it, took this a couple of weeks ago in a store


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Jul 2011)

Probably a bit of fun. I imagine most of the bikes I had as a kid were of similar quality.


----------



## benb (4 Jul 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think we need to keep this in perspective. Last week my LBS tried to sell me an onion with the skin on inside-out. It was nothing more than an OSO!
> 
> The man was clearly not a fresh-produce expert and seemed cynically to have overlooked the potential hazard of eating an inside-out vegetable.
> 
> ...



What _are _you drivelling on about?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Jul 2011)

Yer man is posing the question "why would anyone with half a brain (or more) expect a supermarket employee to know how to assemble a bicycle?"
Answer is - if the supermarket sells bicycles then it is reasonable to expect then to have the nessecary degree of knowledge/understanding persuant to the sale of this product.


benb said:


> What _are _you drivelling on about?


----------



## gregsid (4 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> What _are _you drivelling on about?


He's bothered that he acknowledges Darwin's law of selection which clashes (probably) with his Christian beliefs which are very NON-Darwin.

Greg


----------



## Cyclopathic (4 Jul 2011)

There is a difference between snobery and discernment. Expressing a preference based on sound reasoning is not snobbery. I think BSO is a handy term and has been explained well enough for anybody to understand exactly what is meant by it.


----------



## Cubist (4 Jul 2011)

Tesco last Tuesday. BSO, put together wrong. Fun bike for little Johnny? 




or his sister Jenny. 





Both shite, both put together badly. You can find them in the aisle next to the Spanish strawberries, despite the glut of British strawberries. F*ck knows what the onions are like.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Jul 2011)

To be fair britain is full of little jonnies and little jennies having fun on bikes like these so i find it hard to be so condemnatory. Assembled with the forks round the correct way = fit for purpose = not bso. Case dismissed.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

We're into a debate over what we all interpret differently. I would under no circumstances buy or recommend a bike like the Tesco "Rockface Vertigo". It purports to be something that it isn't, ie a dual suspension bike that will be capable of riding of-road. (I sincerely hope no-one would ever attempt to ride it anywhere near a rockface....) 

Yes, some people will put it to use as a fun bike, as it will be capable of riding round a park or garden, even some short trips, but any owner will quickly realise that its components are shoddy, and will go out of adjustment never to return to a sweet-spot. 

For that reason I for one am perfectly happy to use the term BSO. I have made it clear that this differs hugely from the term "cheap bike". I have seen many cheap bikes that are perfectly fit for purpose as a utility bike, using components that are perfectly good and work well, keeping their shape and adjustment for reasonable periods. 

My kids had cheap bikes when they were little just to ride round parks, gardens, campsites etc. Cubette once persuaded her mum to buy a cheap dual suspension thing (BSO) from JJB sports, and that was a nightmare to keep the brakes and gears working. I was extremely glad to get rid of it, but she loved it. 

Cubester was a bit more discerning, and we accidentally bought him a Kobe hardtail with bouncy forks and shimano gears. It was awesome to ride,and apart from the gripshift gears was OK to maintain. That was a cheap bike and still gives good service today in the hands of its new owner. 

Both my kids have friends who appear on cheap bikes and BSOs. A common theme is that very few people out there know how to repair, service or adjust bikes(BSO or otherwise)so if they buy bikes that won't stay in tune the problem of kids riding round on brakeless deathtraps is compounded. We live at the top of a big hill, and so I always have a sneaky look at their friends' bikes to make sure they will survive the ride home. I therefore consider myself to be qualified in adjusting brakes and gears in all their forms. My point here is that the cheap bikes rarely need adjusting more than once, but the BSOs need fettling every time I see them. 


Am I a snob? No. Would I pay less than £500 for a bike? Completely different argument due to available income.

Would I recommend a cheap bike? Yes of course, as long as it is what it claims to be, ie a budget utility entry level starter beginner to improver rig that works properly more times than it goes out of adjustment.

Would I recommend a £70 supermarket "MTB" to anybody? No of course I wouldn't, that would be irresponsible.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Jul 2011)

Excellent summary, Cubist. If it ain't fit for purpose, it's a BSO. If it's cheap but does the job, it's a cheap bike.


----------



## tyred (5 Jul 2011)

If these bikes were the deathtraps some insist they are, where are all these dead cyclists?

I would hazard a guess that the huge majority of cycling fatalities are the result of being knocked down by a car/van/bus/lorry and it matters little whether you are riding a state of the art carbon, fancy custom built steel or a Tesco double bouncer.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> If these bikes were the deathtraps some insist they are, where are all these dead cyclists?
> 
> I would hazard a guess that the huge majority of cycling fatalities are the result of being knocked down by a car/van/bus/lorry and it matters little whether you are riding a state of the art carbon, fancy custom built steel or a Tesco double bouncer.



Brakes aren't a safety issue where you live then? They are here in the Pennines. 

Perhaps we can start a whole new debate on the use of the term "deathtrap", ie only to be used if the item in question is fit for purpose, ie causing death more often than not......






I would argue that the likelihood of actually being mown down and killed on a BSO is slim, but only because most of them are either on the pavement, in the park or rusting at the back of the shed


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> If these bikes were the deathtraps some insist they are, where are all these dead cyclists?
> 
> I would hazard a guess that the huge majority of cycling fatalities are the result of being knocked down by a car/van/bus/lorry and it matters little whether you are riding a state of the art carbon, fancy custom built steel or a Tesco double bouncer.


Perhaps it's because they are not ridden far enough to reach that point. Maybe the owners know people such as me or Cubist (my neighbour has a BSO I am forever tweaking it). Unless you live in the Fens or Holland I would have thought brake failure would be a major/fatal issue.


----------



## blockend (5 Jul 2011)

A Tesco bike costs the same price to replace as a modest service at an LBS. Dumping such a bike every 3 - 6 months may offend environmental sustainability but make perfect economic sense.
I'm not sure many (if any) modern bikes are as poor quality as welded tube 70s bike boom frames, most just have too much kit on them. Quite expensive bikes used to have suicide brake levers, bendy callipers, horrible saddles, thick steel seat pins, comedy ball bearings, clueless spokes and chewing gum chainsets with alarming wear rates. 

When supermarket-Chinese fashion catches up with the singlespeed trend and knocks out fixies for a hundred nicker cyclists may take them more seriously.


----------



## tyred (5 Jul 2011)

Even Tescos fit brakes to their bikes. They will be capable of stopping the thing if maintained properly, just like any other brake. It is not the fault of the bike if people can't be bothered to maintain them.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

Id like to point out that some Top end forks have V brake mounts placed behind the forks. Pace for example. Just incase there is any confusion.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> Even Tescos fit brakes to their bikes. They will be capable of stopping the thing if maintained properly, just like any other brake. It is not the fault of the bike if people can't be bothered to maintain them.



The issue arises when the brakes fail to work from day one. Anyone who buys a bike from such a place is highly unlikely to have even heard of an M-Check and will assume (quite logically) that the brakes et al will work. If they (and other components such as gear) do not then the bike is not fir for purpose and is a BSM.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Yes but that is an assembly issue and not an intrinsic bike quality issue.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes but that is an assembly issue and not an intrinsic bike quality issue.


If you bought a new car and the brakes didn't work would you argue the same point?


----------



## tyred (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The issue arises when the brakes fail to work from day one. Anyone who buys a bike from such a place is highly unlikely to have even heard of an M-Check and will assume (quite logically) that the brakes et al will work. If they (and other components such as gear) do not then the bike is not fir for purpose and is a BSM.


That is not a fault of the bike. If I have something that doesn't work, I fix it, or get someone else to fix it for me if I can't fix it myself. If someone continues to ride a bike with no brakes, that is the fault of the owner, not the bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> That is not a fault of the bike. If I have something that doesn't work, I fix it, or get someone else to fix it for me if I can't fix it myself. If someone continues to ride a bike with no brakes, that is the fault of the owner, not the bike.


So you would buy a new bike that did not work properly, pay for it to be fixed brought back to "fit for purpose standard" and be happy with it?


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> Even Tescos fit brakes to their bikes. They will be capable of stopping the thing if maintained properly, just like any other brake. It is not the fault of the bike if people can't be bothered to maintain them.



But, once again, you appear to be missing the point that Summerdays, I and Angel are making, (or have tried to make in the sea of apparently selective illiteracy) and that is that the brakes on Tesco bikes are not particularly good quality. They have to be assembled by the buyer. The buyers are, by any argument, not likely to be particularly good bike mechanics (the argument, if I have to spell this out, is that they wouldn't be buying boxed supermarket bikes if they were), and so the initial assembly and adjustment is less likely to be good. 

The brakes then go out of adjustment as the cable stretches with use, the blocks wear and the wheel goes out of true because the owner is convinced by the design that it is suitable for jumping off kerbs etc etc. The owner (or his parent) does not have the experience to maintain them properly. The poor build quality with poor components simply compounds this issue.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you bought a new car and the brakes didn't work would you argue the same point?


I would argue its bad but i dont see the arguement for bso.
If assembly issues are evidence of bso status then if you disconnects the brake cable from your super bike then it also becomes a bso (albeit temporary) . It just dosnt work that way , does it ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would argue its bad but i dont see the arguement for bso.
> If assembly issues are evidence of bso status then if you disconnects the brake cable from your super bike then it also becomes a bso (albeit temporary) . It just dosnt work that way , does it ?



If you disconnect the brakes on any bike and ride it you are crazy. If you follow a set of instructions provided with a self assembly bike and the brakes still do not work it is a BSO. 

As for the car anaolgy is you would class a car as bad for having non functional brakes I have a reasonable car I would like to sell you.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

Assembly issues are not only apparent at supermarkets well known supposedly top suppliers are also guilty of howlers to !


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

....rendering the expensive bike not fit for purpose ! Not the fault of the bike either.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Assembly issues are not only apparent at supermarkets well known supposedly top suppliers are also guilty of howlers to !



I am sure that is the case. You might assume that the buyers of such bikes would have a greater knowledge of the machine and therefore recognise there was an issue. Maybe I am wrong and there are £3000+ bikes being ridden around with back to front forks and defunct brakes?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> ....rendering the expensive bike not fit for purpose ! Not the fault of the bike either.



An inanimate object can never be at fault. The manufacture may be at fault......


----------



## abo (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That is just diabolical. The bike and the fact it has been put together incorrectly.



Oh I don't know, it's ideal for a nipper to fly about on, drop, bang into things etc. while learning. My daughter learned to ride on a 'Hello Kitty' bike which cost £25 lol, she's now on a sub-bmx thing that my eldest used to ride and she flies around on it. It has been bulletproof; the BB could use a strip and rebuild now though, but we've had it ages.

The backwards forks however...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Oh I don't know, it's ideal for a nipper to fly about on, drop, bang into things etc. while learning. My daughter learned to ride on a 'Hello Kitty' bike which cost £25 lol, she's now on a sub-bmx thing that my eldest used to ride and she flies around on it. It has been bulletproof; the BB could use a strip and rebuild now though, but we've had it ages.
> 
> The backwards forks however...



Yes OK I was a little harsh on the bike itself


----------



## tyred (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> But, once again, you appear to be missing the point that Summerdays, I and Angel are making, (or have tried to make in the sea of apparently selective illiteracy) and that is that the brakes on Tesco bikes are not particularly good quality. They have to be assembled by the buyer. The buyers are, by any argument, not likely to be particularly good bike mechanics (the argument, if I have to spell this out, is that they wouldn't be buying boxed supermarket bikes if they were), and so the initial assembly and adjustment is less likely to be good.
> 
> The brakes then go out of adjustment as the cable stretches with use, the blocks wear and the wheel goes out of true because the owner is convinced by the design that it is suitable for jumping off kerbs etc etc. The owner (or his parent) does not have the experience to maintain them properly. The poor build quality with poor components simply compounds this issue.


I see it from the point of view that the bikes are fitted with brakes. If the brakes are adjusted correctly, they do the intended job of stopping the bike. If the owner doesn't maintain the brakes in working order, that is not the fault of the bike, manufacturer or retailer but the fault of the owner. If you don't maintain expensive Campag brakes, they will not work as intended either. 


I own an old MTB which falls into this category and it has plastic cantilever brakes. They work perfectly well because I maintain them. If I didn't, they probably wouldn't work but that is true of most things in life.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am sure that is the case. You might assume that the buyers of such bikes would have a greater knowledge of the machine and therefore recognise there was an issue. Maybe I am wrong and there are £3000+ bikes being ridden around with back to front forks and defunct brakes?




Not so much the wrong way. Loose cranks incorrect or badly adjusted pivot bolts cassettes with wrong spacers etc. Would you know the correct sequence for campag spacers ? I didnt first time id used campag took me 3 weeks to work out it wasnt a incorrectly adjusted Mech.

Im yet to find evidence that any brakes adjusted correctly do not work. Do any of you ? Not opinion but hard evidence.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you disconnect the brakes on any bike and ride it you are crazy. If you follow a set of instructions provided with a self assembly bike and the brakes still do not work it is a BSO.
> 
> As for the car anaolgy is you would class a car as bad for having non functional brakes I have a reasonable car I would like to sell you.


Yes - so are purely assemby related faults legitimate cause for bso status or not. 
Maybe - assembly fault = temporary bso certificate.
Intrinsic design faults = permanent (non recindable) bso certificate.
Thanks but ill pass on the car.


----------



## abo (5 Jul 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I wonder if there's a cheese forum, where connosieurs discuss the merits of cheap mass-market cheeses (Dairlylea, Laughing Cow) and whether they should be classed as Cheese-Shaped-Objects, or whether that term should be reserved only for Cheese Strings, which are in fact made from old bicycles.



I live to give:

cheeseforum.org


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Not so much the wrong way. Loose cranks incorrect or badly adjusted pivot bolts cassettes with wrong spacers etc. Would you know the correct sequence for campag spacers ? I didnt first time id used campag took me 3 weeks to work out it wasnt a incorrectly adjusted Mech.
> 
> Im yet to find evidence that any brakes adjusted correctly do not work. Do any of you ? Not opinion but hard evidence.



I take your point about the high end bikes. I am very surprised but I take your point.

As for evidence that correctly adjusted brakes do not work - No. The point is that as the bikes are self assembly the term "correctly" will vary for person to person based on their experience and ability. I doubt that anyone will feel the need to take a bike bought from one shop to another shop to be checked over.


----------



## blockend (5 Jul 2011)

Poor brakes are not the preserve of cheapo bikes. Cantilevers that do little more than make a suitable noise can be found on £1k machines. I have plastic '98 Mirage levers on a 531 frame and the braking is simply stunning.
Decathlon aren't a supermarket but they've sold £69 hybrids with a full guarantee, service, lights and accessories backed up by a comprehensive workshop.

I still think BSO is a lazy term.


----------



## abo (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes OK I was a little harsh on the bike itself



I did feel a bit sorry for it sat there on the shelf by itself, unloved and badly assembled


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> I did feel a bit sorry for it sat there on the shelf by itself, unloved and badly assembled


I'm welling up


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

My definition for BSO would be.
Not fit for purpose , excluding human error assembly related faults.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> I see it from the point of view that the bikes are fitted with brakes. If the brakes are adjusted correctly, they do the intended job of stopping the bike. If the owner doesn't maintain the brakes in working order, that is not the fault of the bike, manufacturer or retailer but the fault of the owner. If you don't maintain expensive Campag brakes, they will not work as intended either.
> 
> 
> I own an old MTB which falls into this category and it has plastic cantilever brakes. They work perfectly well because I maintain them. If I didn't, they probably wouldn't work but that is true of most things in life.



Reread it and then read the bit where I said "it compounds the issue".

Go and buy as many of these piles of shite as you want. Maintain them to your heart's content, but for goodness sake don't recommend them to the inexperienced as fit for purpose! They simply aren't.

You can call them what you will, I reserve the right to scorn them as the piles of scrap they are. That is my opinion. It isn't snobbery, it a deep seated hatred of anything that doesn't do what it's supposed to do despite an appearance that it should.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> My definition for BSO would be.
> Not fit for purpose , excluding human error assembly related faults.



I am pretty sure Trading Standards would disagree with you on that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> Reread it and then read the bit where I said "it compounds the issue".
> 
> Go and buy as many of these piles of shite as you want. Maintain them to your heart's content, but for goodness sake don't recommend them to the inexperienced as fit for purpose! They simply aren't.
> 
> You can call them what you will, I reserve the right to scorn them as the piles of scrap they are. That is my opinion. It isn't snobbery, it a deep seated hatred of anything that doesn't do what it's supposed to do despite an appearance that it should.



Do I detect the slightest bit of frustration creeping into your replies ?


----------



## Bicycle (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> It isn't snobbery, it a deep seated hatred of anything that doesn't do what it's supposed to do despite an appearance that it should.



Gosh!

When people admit to deep-seated hatred of inanimate objects, I begin to smell techno-snobbery in the air.

I may be wrong.

Meanwhile, I have a deep-seated hatred of those very low sofas with cushions so soft that it's difficult to get up from one with any grace or poise.


----------



## battered (5 Jul 2011)

BSOs are essantially toys. They are not fit for purpose as a bicycle, they won't see the year out before they fall apart. The only way they will survive a year is if they spend most of their time in a garage or shed and come out once a month, then they have a chance. Happily this is what most people expect these days from a bike. Trading Stds know this and their tests are very basic, if it rolls it passes.

This is not snobbery. Not all cheap bikes are BSOs. Decathlon did a single speed commuter for £70, that was fit for purpose and I would have been perfectly happy to have one of those to scoot around town, go to the pub, etc. Basic NTBs work pretty well for roads and towpaths. There are however bikes with "full suspension" that just don't work, I was given one such with a broken simple MTB and it was only suitable for parts.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am pretty sure Trading Standards would disagree with you on that.


If you showed trading standards the bike with the forks on the wrong way round that you had just bought for £40 from asda i hope that once they had stopped laughing they would tell you the best thing to do.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you showed trading standards the bike with the forks on the wrong way round that you had just bought for £40 from asda i hope that once they had stopped laughing they would tell you the best thing to do.



Which I am sure would be to return the bike and ask for demand a refund.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

battered said:


> BSOs are essantially toys. They are not fit for purpose as a bicycle, they won't see the year out before they fall apart. The only way they will survive a year is if they spend most of their time in a garage or shed and come out once a month, then they have a chance. Happily this is what most people expect these days from a bike. Trading Stds know this and their tests are very basic, if it rolls it passes.
> 
> This is not snobbery. Not all cheap bikes are BSOs. Decathlon did a single speed commuter for £70, that was fit for purpose and I would have been perfectly happy to have one of those to scoot around town, go to the pub, etc. Basic NTBs work pretty well for roads and towpaths. There are however bikes with "full suspension" that just don't work, I was given one such with a broken simple MTB and it was only suitable for parts.



So one thing is now clear.

Cheep Bike does not equal BSO

BSO = Cheep bike.

We are getting somewhere.I feel some people believe the false syllogism that one is the same as the other.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Which I am sure would be to return the bike and ask for demand a refund.


But if you like the bike why dont you just turn the forks round the right way. Or you could return the bike to asda and get them to refit the forks or they could just get another of the same bike out of stores that have the forks on the right way round - presuming the assembly line hasnt produced every bike with the forks round the wrong way.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> But if you like the bike why dont you just turn the forks round the right way. Or you could return the bike to asda and get them to refit the forks or they could just get another of the same bike out of stores that have the forks on the right way round - presuming the assembly line hasnt produced every bike with the forks round the wrong way.



Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't trust a bike that has such a blatant flaw in assembly even if it was subsequently corrected. I would certainly seek professional advice from both the legal and mechanical fraternity at this stage.


----------



## stevetailor125 (5 Jul 2011)

I live in a community where even a supermarket BSO is beyond a lot of peoples means which is where my recycled bike scheme started from. I do get a few bso's through but they are rebuilt using better components from spares bikes. As long as they are transport then people without the finances are not worried what makers name is on it. Probably by todays standards my Ridgeback hybrid is a BSO but it does the job, and gets looked after.Sometimes it isn't people not knowing better, its people not being able to afford anything else. A lot of bikes I get donated are not BSO's but still sat neglected out in a back garden for a couple of years


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't trust a bike that has such a blatant flaw in assembly even if it was subsequently corrected. I would certainly seek professional advice from both the legal and mechanical fraternity at this stage.


I cant beleive you bought a bike with the forks on the wrong way round in the first place.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Gosh!
> 
> When people admit to deep-seated hatred of inanimate objects, I begin to smell techno-snobbery in the air.
> 
> ...



No, that deep seated hatred is part of the hatred of anyone who thinks it is acceptable to manufacture and sell something which does not do what is expected of it. If you want to label that as snobbery then you are very far wide of the mark. 

For f*cks sake read the bits that so many of us have tried desperately hard to point out, that we do not deride cheap bikes, kids bikes or toy bikes, we deride poor quality ones that are sold as adult bikes.


I consider the sale of supermarket BSOs to be akin to fraud. If Decathlon and Halfords can knock out acceptable quality bikes for the £100 mark, then so can Tesco, Asda, Argos et al. That they continue to sell scrap like the "Rockface Vertigo" despite consumer programmes etc pointing out the dangers/shortfalls, and continue to assemble them incorrectly on their display, indicates their cynicism and lack of responsibility.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So one thing is now clear.
> 
> Cheep Bike does not equal BSO
> 
> ...



The equals sign is being misused. If it was truly equal, then the equation would work whichever way round you put it.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

stevetailor125 said:


> I live in a community where even a supermarket BSO is beyond a lot of peoples means which is where my recycled bike scheme started from. I do get a few bso's through but they are rebuilt using better components from spares bikes. As long as they are transport then people without the finances are not worried what makers name is on it. Probably by todays standards my Ridgeback hybrid is a BSO but it does the job, and gets looked after.Sometimes it isn't people not knowing better, its people not being able to afford anything else. A lot of bikes I get donated are not BSO's but still sat neglected out in a back garden for a couple of years



Lovely. You manage to endorse and contradict all the arguments advanced in one single post.






You recycle BSO's, but not before you replace the shoddy components with better quality ones. Great. You rescue them from BSO status to cheap bike status by making them ridable. 

People with limited finances are not brand snobs. They want transport. If they were to ask you how best to get a bike for 70 quid what would you say? Would you tell them to go to Tesco and buy a Rockface Vertigo, or would you point them to the classifieds/ebay where that sort of money is perfectly capable of scoring a quality second hand bike? 

Was you Ridgeback a BSO when you bought it? No. It was a budget bike.; It's now an old bike. That doesn't make it a BSO. 

All bikes can be neglected. BSOs aren't the only ones. However, if you buy a bike and riding it is an unpleasant experience, and your hands won't turn the gripshift, and your shoes are worn out from slowing you down you are more likely to abandon it behind the caged trampoline. 

Tesco et al are exploiting the people with only £70 to spend. They could do better, but choose not to.


----------



## Mad at urage (5 Jul 2011)

stevetailor125 said:


> I live in a community where even a supermarket BSO is beyond a lot of peoples means which is where my recycled bike scheme started from. I do get a few bso's through but they are rebuilt using better components from spares bikes. As long as they are transport then people without the finances are not worried what makers name is on it. _*Probably by todays standards my Ridgeback hybrid is a BSO but it does the job, *_and gets looked after.Sometimes it isn't people not knowing better, its people not being able to afford anything else. A lot of bikes I get donated are not BSO's but still sat neglected out in a back garden for a couple of years


  You really are hard of reading aren't you: 

It has been said repeatedly by those defending the use of 'BSO' that if a bike does its job, it is not a BSO. 

If you rebuild "with better components" the BSOs that come through, not only does it make them no longer BSOs, but demonstrates that they were BSOs because the components needed to be replaced with better ones (rather than replaced like-for-like because they are worn out) in order to do the job.

Some people look for snobbery where there is none: This is called 'Having a chip on your shoulder'.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Jul 2011)

It's really not hard to understand what a BSO is. 


A BSO is a stack them high, sell them cheap bike from a supermarket. With poor components made from cheese (Brake levers, bolts etc). 
There are plenty of videos on You Tube about these bikes. Watchdog even did a piece about these shoddily made bikes. Once again easy to find on You Tube.

A BSO is not an old Ridgeback or an old Peugeot or an old hack bike that has been left in the garden for 50 years or an old frame that has been made up with various bit's and pieces.

A BSO is a cheap supermarket bike from Aldis, Argos or Tesco's or similar. SIMPLE.


----------



## Bicycle (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> No, that deep seated hatred is part of the hatred of anyone who thinks it is acceptable to manufacture and sell something which does not do what is expected of it. If you want to label that as snobbery then you are very far wide of the mark.
> 
> For f*cks sake read the bits that so many of us have tried desperately hard to point out, that we do not deride cheap bikes, kids bikes or toy bikes, we deride poor quality ones that are sold as adult bikes.
> 
> ...



You're quite right and I'm quite wrong.

I too will learn to hate (as you imply you do) anyone who 'thinks it is acceptable to manufacture and sell something which does not do what is expected of it'.

It was silly of me humorously to imply that this is slightly whiffy of snobbery.

I'm sorry my gentle ribbing has caused you to type asterisks where politeness makes profanities ill-advised.

I'm sorry my gentle ribbing caused you to want to type profanities at all. Mea culpa.

I'm sorry I have been unable until now to take the whole BSO debate in the least bit seriously.

I now agree with you 100%. 

Sorry to have been on the giggling margin for as long as I was. I am now a very, very serious hater of BSOs....

I now agree that the sale of BSOs is akin to fraud. I hate all bad, naughty people.

Hate, hate, hate.... Grrrrr!


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

Bicycle said:


> You're quite right and I'm quite wrong.
> 
> I too will learn to hate (as you imply you do) anyone who 'thinks it is acceptable to manufacture and sell something which does not do what is expected of it'.
> 
> ...


Grow up.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

So now a BSO is a Bike not fit for purpose is it ?

Well lets have a look at it shall we ? The said BSO s would be generally used by one of the following 3 groups:

1) Children to potter round the park or back garden.

2) Adults for the occasional trip to the local shop etc.

3) Occassional weekend cyclists on cyclepaths etc. Adults and children.

Do we agree so far ?

Good.

Now then the average mileage per year would be what 200 300 miles if your lucky. These products well maintained are well capable of this and the components would still be there at the end. Job done for the owner. Cost 70 quid.

Now then the bike snobs  Bike 3 grand mileage circa 10000 miles a year Tyres chain brakes cassetes etc. etc. etc. Countless hours spent cleaning adjusting etc.

Whos laughing at who.  

Cubist el al. You enjoy your pastime as others do, on what you may consider an inferior product. So what ?
You sir are a bike snob of the highest order !


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Jul 2011)

Someone should be buy one of these ASDA bikes, use it for a whole month of commuting / leisure rides...etc and then blog their findings. Not me though, I'm errr....busy.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)




----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Someone should be buy one of these ASDA bikes, use it for a whole month of commuting / leisure rides...etc and then blog their findings. Not me though, I'm errr....busy.


I think we'd have plenty of volunteers.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> So now a BSO is a Bike not fit for purpose is it ?
> 
> Well lets have a look at it shall we ? The said BSO s would be generally used by one of the following 3 groups:
> 
> ...



If its purpose is 200/300 miles per year and it is well capable of this then by definition it is not a bso.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> I think we'd have plenty of volunteers.




Yep! Im not proud Ill ride anything. Including one of yours if I had to


----------



## davefb (5 Jul 2011)

Well,

whichever, I'm assuming the peeps that took the bike photo's actually pointed out the incorrectly setup bikes ?

Theres no excuse for this, they'd not setup a dvd and tv with the tv on its side . ( not saying they know hifi)... If the staff arent trained then its a corperate thing and they should at least have some form of minimal standards?

or are they going to wait till a court case ?


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If its purpose is 200/300 miles per year and it is well capable of this then by definition it is not a bso.




Exactly dear boy


----------



## blockend (5 Jul 2011)

In the days when a packet of Woodbines were an essential part of cycling kit and a bike's ability to get to work/pub/fishing/football faster than walking to the same place was the _only_ criterion, bicycles regular ran with virtually flat tyres, sagging chains and dodgy brakes, Strewth, even a well adjusted rod brake on a Westwood rim was Russian roulette. It's a tribute to bicycles that they continue to operate when virtually nothing but the chain is still functioning correctly and I've seen those held together with wire.

One might suggest today's hundred mile bike ride is the anomaly and expecting a sixty quid bike to complete it is absurd. It still might keep rolling to the factory gates at 8mph for a few years.


----------



## stevetailor125 (5 Jul 2011)

There is one thing I must confess about the Ridgeback it had a lot of good quality parts fitted to it when I brought it, I really changed the pedals, saddle and other bits for my own health needs, but I'm a person that has also been spotted riding a home guard bicycle and a 1930's delivery bicycles  
I'm not hard of reading just to flaming idle to read through every article just to add my comments lmfao


----------



## Simba (5 Jul 2011)

LOL @ this thread. Why can't people read what others are saying. I have had cheap bikes in the past and they worked perfect, I have also had a BSO when my bike knowledge was very limited and it lasted me 2 weeks before it broke. 

Cheap bike from halfords = good

Cheap bike from Asda = BSO


----------



## abo (5 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Yep! Im not proud Ill ride anything. Including one of yours if I had to



Calling Fnaar


----------



## abo (5 Jul 2011)

Simba said:


> LOL @ this thread. Why can't people read what others are saying. I have had cheap bikes in the past and they worked perfect, I have also had a BSO when my bike knowledge was very limited and it lasted me 2 weeks before it broke.
> 
> Cheap bike from halfords = good
> 
> Cheap bike from Asda = BSO



Cheap bike from halfords: maybe BSO... See Trax bikes!!! My Apollo experience wasn't exactly fun but others seem fine with them


----------



## Bicycle (5 Jul 2011)

This thread has provided *endless entertainment* to those of us who care not what is or is not a BSO.

I love to hear the _'clump, clump, clump'_ of shovel on soil, as positions are strengthened and trenches dug deeper.

"Oh no! Someone disagrees with an entirely arbitrary view I hold. Bring up a mortar platoon and prepare to fight to the bloody end! The foe appear as illogically intransigent as I am!" 


I have no opinion at all in this matter, but can't resist to the temptation to poke the wasps' nest with a stick when I sense intransigence in a thread...

... or snobbery for that matter.

I congratulate us all on wearing out the same tired arguments for days without budging an inch.


----------



## benb (5 Jul 2011)

Translation: I am a troll who enjoys provoking argument and conflict. 



Bicycle said:


> This thread has provided *endless entertainment* to those of us who care not what is or is not a BSO.
> 
> I love to hear the _'clump, clump, clump'_ of shovel on soil, as positions are strengthened and trenches dug deeper.
> 
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> Translation: I am a troll who enjoys provoking argument and conflict.


You may say that I couldn't possibly comment


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (5 Jul 2011)

So what's a BSO then?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> So what's a BSO then?



Big Shitty Object


----------



## stevetailor125 (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Big Shitty Object




That describes the hgv that almost wiped me out yesterday, shame he didn't spot the police traffic car behind him, he sure did when the blues and twos went on, the officers even smiled at me as I went past


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

stevetailor125 said:


> That describes the hgv that almost wiped me out yesterday, shame he didn't spot the police traffic car behind him, he sure did when the blues and twos went on, the officers even smiled at me as I went past


How I wish you had that on camera


----------



## summerdays (5 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> That is not a fault of the bike. If I have something that doesn't work, I fix it, or get someone else to fix it for me if I can't fix it myself. If someone continues to ride a bike with no brakes, that is the fault of the owner, not the bike.



Last week I was asked to look at a friends kid's bike that the brake didn't work ... in the end we decided it was the pad (on her BSO), the mother tried to get it replaced at the weekend and apparently nobody (4 different bike shops) stocks brake pads that actually fit the bso disk brakes. If you can't actually get spares for the bike then that is a BSO.




tyred said:


> I see it from the point of view that the bikes are fitted with brakes. If the brakes are adjusted correctly, they do the intended job of stopping the bike. If the owner doesn't maintain the brakes in working order, that is not the fault of the bike, manufacturer or retailer but the fault of the owner. If you don't maintain expensive Campag brakes, they will not work as intended either.
> 
> 
> I own an old MTB which falls into this category and it has plastic cantilever brakes. They work perfectly well because I maintain them. If I didn't, they probably wouldn't work but that is true of most things in life.



The problem is with BSO's is that you try to maintain them and you can't get it to the point that it works properly and within a very very short while it is out of adjustment again. Whereas other better (not necessarily more expensive, just better) bikes can be adjusted properly and will remain adjusted for a reasonable amount of time.




Cubist said:


> No, that deep seated hatred is part of the hatred of anyone who thinks it is acceptable to manufacture and sell something which does not do what is expected of it. If you want to label that as snobbery then you are very far wide of the mark.
> 
> For f*cks sake read the bits that so many of us have tried desperately hard to point out, that we do not deride cheap bikes, kids bikes or toy bikes, we deride poor quality ones that are sold as adult bikes.
> 
> ...



Very well said - though I would say that kids bikes can be some of the worst BSO's around. For example the motorcycle shaped BSO.... it isn't even bike shaped, can't adjust the seat height and is so heavy it could flatten the poor child trying to ride it.


----------



## rowan 46 (5 Jul 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> So what's a BSO then?



It's an initialism for Bike shaped object. the problem is that people can't seem to agree what a bike is some people think it's a brand or type they approve of some people think. "A *bicycle*, also known as a *bike*, *pushbike* or *cycle*, is a human-powered, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, having two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other."


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Jul 2011)

Eh, each to their own.

If you like riding something with flexy plastic brake levers, wheels that don't stay true, and brake arms pressed out of (what looks to me) to be pretty thin sheet metal, have at it. I've not ridden one, but have worked on a few for friends & neighbours - Luckily decent-ish MTB/Trekking bits are reasonably priced, so where I can we'll change the levers & fit Deore or Acera V-brakes, which makes a fair difference. I've yet to be given a disc equipped one to sort out.

Somewhere back in the thread is a post about 80s/90s steel mtbs. Generally a different kettle of fish, ime (although I daresay there were cheap & nasty versions around at the time). The ones that have survived tend to be rugged bikes that make great beaters, commuters, pub bikes, load haulers, trailer pullers, xtracycle conversions, child seat bikes... you name it. I have a hybrid of similar vintage that I love to bits (although it's gone canti -> v brake, and has a wheel set I built up for it, bits replaced as they wore out, or as I fancied putting something nicer on the bike). 

£50 for one of those is generally a bargain - £50 for an Asda or a Tesco "bike" won't be. But hey, it's your money.


----------



## rowan 46 (5 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Eh, each to their own.
> 
> If you like riding something with flexy plastic brake levers, wheels that don't stay true, and brake arms pressed out of (what looks to me) to be pretty thin sheet metal, have at it. I've not ridden one, but have worked on a few for friends & neighbours - Luckily decent-ish MTB/Trekking bits are reasonably priced, so where I can we'll change the levers & fit Deore or Acera V-brakes, which makes a fair difference. I've yet to be given a disc equipped one to sort out.
> 
> ...



amen to that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> amen to that


Agreed.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Jul 2011)

Big supermarkets such as tesco and asda have largely become the default market for joe public to buy a wide range of there stuff from groceries to bicycles. They may stack em high and sell em cheap but personally I woudnt expect tescos or asda to sell shoddy bikes. Other shops maybe but i would expect better of asda and tesco.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7NHCy13ZLk


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Big supermarkets such as tesco and asda have largely become the default market for joe public to buy a wide range of there stuff from groceries to bicycles. They may stack em high and sell em cheap but personally I woudnt expect tescos or asda to sell shoddy bikes. Other shops maybe but i would expect better of asda and tesco.



Expectation is the key I feel. If I buy a product I expect it to be fit for purpose. If the bike comes with an information sheet telling me it is only for short rides and will last only a few hundred miles then it is fit for purpose. If it is sold as something it is not then it is not fit for purpose and is a BSO.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=I7NHCy13ZLk


Love that film. I fell in love with Andy MacDowell when I saw it.


----------



## Cubist (5 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Love that film. I fell in love with Andy MacDowell when I saw it.



There is something about her, I must admit.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> There is something about her, I must admit.


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Alembicbassman (5 Jul 2011)

She turned out OK, her father Roddy is an ape.


----------



## Alembicbassman (6 Jul 2011)

Another two in Asda today

Forks reversed on the ladies bike and handlebars squiffy on the gents one


----------



## apollo179 (6 Jul 2011)

Failings in assembly do not nessecarily mean bso. Are these bikes assembled on site (asda) or at factory.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Failings in assembly do not nessecarily mean bso. Are these bikes assembled on site (asda) or at factory.



Well in the current state it certainly isn't a bike.


----------



## Cubist (6 Jul 2011)

You'd be buying British though.....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> You'd be buying British though.....


That used to be a good thing


----------



## davefb (6 Jul 2011)

Alembicbassman said:


> Another two in Asda today
> 
> Forks reversed on the ladies bike and handlebars squiffy on the gents one



and did you mention it ?


----------



## Bicycle (6 Jul 2011)

I recall a time maybe 20 years ago when so-called 'Upside Down Forks' started to creep into motorcycle sport (lower unsprung weight among other advantages). Looked weird at the time, but quickly caught on at the top level.

Could these back-to-front forks on BSOs be something in a similar vein?

Will we all soon be riding top-spec bikes with back-to-front forks?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Big supermarkets such as tesco and asda have largely become the default market for joe public to buy a wide range of there stuff from groceries to bicycles. They may stack em high and sell em cheap but personally I woudnt expect tescos or asda to sell shoddy bikes. Other shops maybe but i would expect better of asda and tesco.



Comes back to crap BSI 9or whoever) standards then surely? 

I would not expect Tesco to sell shoddy TV's, microwaves, mp3 players, mobile phones, produce, pasta, meat, etc., etc., so why are they getting away with selling shoddy bikes.

What they sell needs be fit for purpose. That's the law and the consumers/customer right. They can sell a cheese framed, cucumber braked BSO with tictacs for bearings and wheels made from bacofoil and hide behind the standards on the basis that it complies.

The bikes you can buy in many European supermarkets are fine and great vfm. French, German and Austrian supermarkets have had me dribbling over thier bikes and I even bought a Portuguese supermarket 'mountain' bike from Pingu when on holiday there and it survived all the mountains I (slowly) threw at it and clocked up a fair few 100km on road without anything other than normal adjustments.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Comes back to crap BSI 9or whoever) standards then surely?
> 
> I would not expect Tesco to sell shoddy TV's, microwaves, mp3 players, mobile phones, produce, pasta, meat, etc., etc., so why are they getting away with selling shoddy bikes.
> 
> ...


It has not been established that tescos are selling shoddy bikes. Bike with forks on round the wrong way is a shoddily assembled bike , not nessecarily a shoddy bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It has not been established that tescos are selling shoddy bikes. Bike with forks on round the wrong way is a shoddily assembled bike , not nessecarily a shoddy bike.



Have you ever seen one. Ridden one, worked one one? They are shoddy, trust me.


----------



## 4F (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It has not been established that tescos are selling shoddy bikes. Bike with forks on round the wrong way is a shoddily assembled bike , not nessecarily a shoddy bike.



Buy cheap buy twice.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It has not been established that tescos are selling shoddy bikes. Bike with forks on round the wrong way is a shoddily assembled bike , not nessecarily a shoddy bike.



Yes it has.
You only have to You Tube Watchdog/Tesco to find a nice video about these bikes.


----------



## Alembicbassman (7 Jul 2011)

Gadget Show did a review of them a few months back

Decathlon Rockrider 5.0 won beacause they kept it simple. steel frame, no suspension, SRAM twist grips, fully assembled and ready to ride £100

Gadget Show


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Yes it has.
> You only have to You Tube Watchdog/Tesco to find a nice video about these bikes.



The main issue raised is the ease of assembly of flat pack bikes. 
The test assemblers are given the bikes to assemble in a field with limited tools.
Come on guys - its nonsense.
At the end the the bike experts say the bikes are unsafe because the brakes are adjusted incorrectly. Its rubbish. Youve given somebody incapable the task of assembling a bike in a field in limited time with limited tools.
The bikes may be shoddy but this is totally lacking in credibility.
Note - the on hand expert (paul) was able to get the bikes in a fit state to ride.
I would agree that the idea in principal of flat pack bikes is wrong - bikes should be sold properly assembled and working properly and safely.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The main issue raised is the ease of assembly of flat pack bikes.
> The test assemblers are given the bikes to assemble in a field with limited tools.
> Come on guys - its nonsense.
> At the end the the bike experts say the bikes are unsafe because the brakes are adjusted incorrectly. Its rubbish. Youve given somebody incapable the task of assembling a bike in a field in limited time with limited tools.
> ...


If you bought flat-pack furniture would you call in a carpenter to build said item? The concept is the same for the bike. You should need Allan keys and a spanner or two (oh and a pump) to assemble even a BSO so where is the problem with limited tools?


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The main issue raised is the ease of assembly of flat pack bikes.
> The test assemblers are given the bikes to assemble in a field with limited tools.
> Come on guys - its nonsense.
> At the end the the bike experts say the bikes are unsafe because the brakes are adjusted incorrectly. Its rubbish. Youve given somebody incapable the task of assembling a bike in a field in limited time with limited tools.
> ...





Any BSO can me made to be in a fit state of ride that's fair enough. The question is though how long will the bike stay in a fit state to ride?


----------



## 4F (7 Jul 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Any BSO can me made to be in a fit state of ride that's fair enough. The question is though how long will the bike stay in a fit state to ride?




In the case of my neighbours "Asda special" normally about a week before the brakes and gears need readjusting again. I have now refused  to fix it anymore as it was becoming a joke.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you bought flat-pack furniture would you call in a carpenter to build said item? The concept is the same for the bike. You should need Allan keys and a spanner or two (oh and a pump) to assemble even a BSO so where is the problem with limited tools?



The problem is that the human assemblers are incapable and the limited tools exacerbate the problem. I expect you could assemble one of these kits but the watchdog deliberately didnt get somebody capable to do the task.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The problem is that the human assemblers are incapable and the limited tools exacerbate the problem. I expect you could assemble one of these kits but the watchdog deliberately didnt get somebody capable to do the task.


Possibly just the sort of person who would buy such a bike?


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Any BSO can me made to be in a fit state of ride that's fair enough. The question is though how long will the bike stay in a fit state to ride?


That is correct. Im not saying these bikes are great - im saying the programme lacks credibility.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> That is correct. Im not saying these bikes are great - im saying the programme lacks credibility.


Why did it lack credibility? Are you suggesting they set Tesco up?


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Possibly just the sort of person who would buy such a bike?


Yes your probably spot on. But these people woudnt be able to assemble any bike regardless of the quality.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why did it lack credibility? Are you suggesting they set Tesco up?


Have you watched it ?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnMlxWL8ttQ


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes your probably spot on. But these people woudnt be able to assemble any bike regardless of the quality.



Agreed. The point is that the program was not flawed because of the choice of assemblers.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Have you watched it ?
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ZnMlxWL8ttQ


Yes.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Agreed. The point is that the program was not flawed because of the choice of assemblers.



The point is that the program was flawed because of the choice of assemblers.
If the point the programme was trying to make was that an incompetent person cant build a bike then it made that point - not much of a point though.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The point is that the program was flawed because of the choice of assemblers.


Why?


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why?


Because if the assembler is incapable / incompetent then the task is doomed from the outset , irrespective of the bike.
For an analogy - you give someone who is hopeless at cooking a cake mix and he creates an inedible mess. In the hands of a good cook its a lovely cake.
Its not the fault of the cake mix.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Because if the assembler is incapable / incompetent then the task is doomed from the outset , irrespective of the bike.
> For an analogy - you give someone who is hopeless at cooking a cake mix and he creates an inedible mess. In the hands of a good cook its a lovely cake.
> Its not the fault of the cake mix.



I agree that you can not ascertain directly from the program that the bikes are BSO's but you can ascertain that they are almost certainly in a dangerous state after assembly. It also highlights that you don't always get what you think you are buying.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

The programme does serve to warn people about the perils attendant in buying flat pack bikes but beyongd that it is alarmist rubbish lacking any real credibility.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The programme does serve to warn people about the perils attendant in buying flat pack bikes but beyongd that it is alarmist rubbish lacking any real credibility.



I ask again have you seen, worked on or ridden one of the bikes they sell?


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The point is that the program was flawed because of the choice of assemblers.
> If the point the programme was trying to make was that an incompetent person cant build a bike then it made that point - not much of a point though.



That's not the point they were making though. They took several 'ordinary', random members of the public and got them to build the bikes using the tools and instructions provided with the bikes. The bikes were difficult to build and adjust into working order through several factors: builder inexperience, poor tools, poor instructions, poor quality product. They eventually managed to put together bikes which could be sat on and ridden, but it took a bloke with proper bike knowledge and tools to make them work properly, and then only *just* due to the overall quality of the bikes.

The programme was asking, could you pile bikes high and sell them super-cheap to Joe Public, and expect them to put them together properly without the help of an expert. The answer was 'no'.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> That's not the point they were making though. They took several 'ordinary', random members of the public and got them to build the bikes using the tools and instructions provided with the bikes. The bikes were difficult to build and adjust into working order through several factors: builder inexperience, poor tools, poor instructions, poor quality product. They eventually managed to put together bikes which could be sat on and ridden, but it took a bloke with proper bike knowledge and tools to make them work properly, and then only *just* due to the overall quality of the bikes.
> 
> The programme was asking, could you pile bikes high and sell them super-cheap to Joe Public, and expect them to put them together properly without the help of an expert. The answer was 'no'.



Thank you. I couldn't be bothered to type what was so obvious. Glad you have more patience than me


----------



## chillyuk (7 Jul 2011)

I went into ASDA this morning and there it was on their bike display, a bike with forks on backwards. Upon closer inspection I realised that nothing had been done up, the handlebars were loose and that it had just been taken out of the box and stuck on the stand. Personally, if I wanted to sell one I would make sure it looked right even if I wasn't fully assembling it. You would also think that after all the adverse hilarity that ASDA have caused with their wrong way round forks that the shops would at least try and get it right.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

FWIW, Cycling Plus bought a supermarket bike for one of their £100 bike challenges.

They are, I would assume, pretty competent at putting bikes together.

IIRC, the wheels needed truing (and didn't stay true) and one of the crankarms sheared off within ten minutes or so. 

I've not seen parts break in normal use on the ones I've worked on[1] - but I've seen stuff that should stay adjusted drift to the point that it needs adjusting again quicker than it should. (Do you want to index your gears every week? I don't). I've seen kids bikes (a "Rhino" full suspension bike, from Toys R Us) that weighed more than my (adult size) Raleigh Pioneer.

I'll say again, if you want to buy a supermarket bike, what the hey, it's your money. But the balance of evidence suggests to me that making it out to be a shrewd choice is folly.

[1] Although I have seen a seized pedal - the axle & bearings seemed to have been assembled sans grease - the parts were not user serviceable, so new pedals required.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I ask again have you seen, worked on or ridden one of the bikes they sell?


No - I have no personal knowledge of these bikes so cannot condone or condemn.
My issue is with the legitimacy of the programme.
You could give the winning bike of the tdf to these people in flat pack form and you would get the same result.
This programme amounts to no bonafide evidence against the quality of these bikes.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> That's not the point they were making though. They took several 'ordinary', random members of the public and got them to build the bikes using the tools and instructions provided with the bikes. The bikes were difficult to build and adjust into working order through several factors: builder inexperience, poor tools, poor instructions, poor quality product. They eventually managed to put together bikes which could be sat on and ridden, but it took a bloke with proper bike knowledge and tools to make them work properly, and then only *just* due to the overall quality of the bikes.
> 
> The programme was asking, could you pile bikes high and sell them super-cheap to Joe Public, and expect them to put them together properly without the help of an expert. The answer was 'no'.


Exactly - the only point the programme conveys is that someone incapable of assembling a bike will not be able to assemble a bike. Its nonsense.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Thank you. I couldn't be bothered to type what was so obvious. Glad you have more patience than me



Glad you finally got it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Glad you finally got it.


You mean the bits about even an expert needing additional tools and even then only just managing to get the bike into a roadworthy condition. Yes I got it. I wonder if would have struggled so much with a bike from CRC, Wiggle, Ribble et al.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> No - I have no personal knowledge of these bikes so cannot condone or condemn.
> My issue is with the legitimacy of the programme.
> You could give the winning bike of the tdf to these people in flat pack form and you would get the same result.
> This programme amounts to no bonafide evidence against the quality of these bikes.


I have and I can tell you I would rather ride my 20 year old "Apollo Kaos" than the crap that is coming out of the supermarkets in the UK.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Yes thats lovely - but the programme is nonsense.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes thats lovely - but the programme is nonsense.


Er OK.


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> This programme amounts to no bonafide evidence against the quality of these bikes.




It did, the expert gave a statement saying they were shoot basically


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> It did, the expert gave a statement saying they were shoot basically



SSH! Angelfishsolo already mentioned that. WE ARE IGNORING IT.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> It did, the expert gave a statement saying they were shoot basically



<devils advocate? Yer but the expert was on Watchdogs side. It's all one big conspiricy to topple the Supermarket empires </devils advocate>


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> SSH! Angelfishsolo already mentioned that. WE ARE IGNORING IT.



You are in my book now


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You are in my book now



"Don't tell him, Pike!"


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Exactly - the only point the programme conveys is that someone incapable of assembling a bike will not be able to assemble a bike. Its nonsense.



**** sake, it's not nonsense! It was saying that exactly the people who these ****ing bikes are aimed at are not capable of building them! There is a (possibly to subtle for you to see) difference.

I'm beginning to suspect you are labouring on this on purpose...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> "Don't tell him, Pike!"


LMAO. Such a great show


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> **** sake, it's not nonsense! It was saying that exactly the people who these ****ing bikes are aimed at are not capable of building them! There is a (possibly *too* subtle for you to see) difference.
> 
> I'm beginning to suspect you are labouring on this on purpose...


FTFY  I think I might convert my keyboard into a Cyrillic one instead. Maybe I might be understood by some then!!!


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> FTFY  I think I might convert my keyboard into a Cyrillic one instead. Maybe I might be understood by some then!!!



How dare you fix my poor spelling when I'm having a sweary rant!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> How dare you fix my poor spelling when I'm having a sweary rant!!!



Sorry fella the "o" looked so lonely and it looked like a "too" shaped object


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> **** sake, it's not nonsense! It was saying that exactly the people who these ****ing bikes are aimed at are not capable of building them! There is a (possibly to subtle for you to see) difference.
> 
> I'm beginning to suspect you are labouring on this on purpose...


This programme was forwarded as substatiation to tesco / asda bikes being poor quality.
I was making the point that it dosnt reflect on the quality of the bikes , so much as the ability of the people assembling them.
Incompetent assembly is going to result in problems regardless of the inherant quality of the bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> This programme was forwarded as substatiation to tesco / asda bikes being poor quality.
> I was making the point that it dosnt reflect on the quality of the bikes , so much as the ability of the people assembling them.
> Incompetent assembly is going to result in problems regardless of the inherant quality of the bike.



So the expert who couldn't assemble the bike without other tools was also incompetent was he?


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

The expert did assemble the bike !
What makes you say he was incompetent


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The expert did assemble the bike !
> What makes you say he was incompetent


Do you have difficulty reading apollo 179? 



Angelfishsolo said:


> So the expert who couldn't assemble the bike *without other tools *was also incompetent was he?


Or in comprehending the difference between "assemble the bike" and "assemble the bike *without other tools"*_?

_Genuine question_,_ since subtleties seem lost on you. I'm looking for a reason for your inability to distinguish the point of marketing BSOs at the inexperienced._
_


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The expert did assemble the bike !
> What makes you say he was incompetent



He needed additional tools and then only just managed to make it ridable. You state that "Incompetent assembly is going to result in problems regardless of the inherant quality of the bike." If the expert hand no access to additional tools he would have failed to assemble the bike thus, by your definition, making him incompetent.


----------



## 4F (7 Jul 2011)

22 pages talking about sh*t bikes, the worlds gone mad.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> He needed additional tools and then only just managed to make it ridable. You state that "Incompetent assembly is going to result in problems regardless of the inherant quality of the bike." If the expert hand no access to additional tools he would have failed to assemble the bike thus, by your definition, making him incompetent.


I dont recall seeing if the expert had other tools but i see your point and agree that by my definition if it is impossible to properly assemble with the accompanying tools then anyone trying would be incompetent.
This would be an inadequate tool problem as opposed to an inherant bike quality problem (although as i have previously said the bikes may very well be complete rubbish)


----------



## Cubist (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> This programme was forwarded as substatiation to tesco / asda bikes being poor quality.
> I was making the point that it dosnt reflect on the quality of the bikes , so much as the ability of the people assembling them.
> Incompetent assembly is going to result in problems regardless of the inherant quality of the bike.



OK, I'll try and make it clear.

1. The programme is looking at the marketing of flat pack bikes. 

2. Flat pack bikes are bought by inexperienced people with no knowledge and no special tools.

3. Ordinary inexperienced people tried to build them with the tools in the box. They failed.

At this point we can conclude that the bikes should not be sold to these people because they are being misled into believing the bikes will be safe and ridable without the intervention of more experienced, better equipped cycle mechanics. This is exploitative and irresponsible on the part of the vendors. 

4. An experienced and well-equipped cycle mechanic completes the assembly of the bikes. 

5. In doing so he has to repair buckled wheels and bent V-Brakes/noodles. (these should fit into anybody's definition of shoddy by the way)

6. He also concludes that, from an experienced person's point of view, the quality of the components means that they will not work well for long anyway. 

At this point we can conclude that even when assembled by an expert the bikes are of shoddy quality. 

This is what Angel, Summerdays, I, and others have pointed out ad nauseam. It's not the assembly that's at fault. The bikes are poor quality to start with. Add in the flatpack factor and the supermarkets are being even more irresponsible by conning people into thinking these things will work if assembled by the average Joe Soap in the kitchen.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> OK, I'll try and make it clear.
> 
> 1. The programme is looking at the marketing of flat pack bikes.
> 
> ...



Cubist you have far more patience than I


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> OK, I'll try and make it clear.
> 
> 1. The programme is looking at the marketing of flat pack bikes.
> 
> ...



However at the risk of further inflaming the masses i would point out that the perils of flat pack would still exist even if the bike was a high quality bike.
It is anti flat pack bikes - the question of the quality of the bikes (properly assembled) themselves is less clear cut .
Assembly is clearly an issue. Their are also obviously legitimate reservations re bike quality - you get what you pay for.
Supermarkets are irresponsible - a case could be made. But i think some are being a bit precious over the whole thing. Joe public buys a cheap bike . bolts it together as best he can and gets whatever use out of it he can. Joe public needs to take some responsibilty - no-ones forcing him to buy the stuff. To be honest i dont really have a problem with tesco / asda over this so long as the bikes pass the nessecary standards.


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

Cubist said:


> OK, I'll try and make it clear.
> 
> 1. The programme is looking at the marketing of flat pack bikes.
> 
> ...



amen


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> However at the risk of further inflaming the masses i would point out that the perils of flat pack would still exist even if the bike was a high quality bike.
> It is anti flat pack bikes - the question of the quality of the bikes (properly assembled) themselves is less clear cut .
> Assembly is clearly an issue. Their are also obviously legitimate reservations re bike quality - you get what you pay for.
> Supermarkets are irresponsible - a case could be made. But i think some are being a bit precious over the whole thing. Joe public buys a cheap bike . bolts it together as best he can and gets whatever use out of it he can. Joe public needs to take some responsibilty - no-ones forcing him to buy the stuff. To be honest i dont really have a problem with tesco / asda over this so long as the bikes pass the nessecary standards.


My Cube Reaction came flat packed. It had all the necessary tools (ie allan keys) and an incredibly detailed set of instructions. Pretty much one set for each adjustable component. I had never assembled a flat packed bike before but after half any hour (I spend £1.4K so I was being *very careful*) the bike was perfect.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> My Cube Reaction came flat packed. It had all the necessary tools (ie allan keys) and an incredibly detailed set of instructions. Pretty much one set for each adjustable component. I had never assembled a flat packed bike before but after half any hour (I spend £1.4K so I was being *very careful*) the bike was perfect.



So flat pack is ok for those capable to assemble but not for those not competent.
If joe public is attracted by the idea of a flat pack bike and all the fun of bolting it together what do you do ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So flat pack is ok for those capable to assemble but not for those not competent.
> If joe public is attracted by the idea of a flat pack bike and all the fun of bolting it together what do you do ?



You ensure that the kit is supplied with adequate tools and instructions and that it *is engineered to a quality that allows the bike to be assembled correctly.*


----------



## Cubist (7 Jul 2011)

The converse is of course also true. How many times do we read on these hallowed pages that poster X or Poster Z would not go near a Apollo/Carrera/Voodoo/Boardman because they are assembled by incompetent oafs etc etc etc????. 

I once read one exasperated Boardman owner trying to convince a Halfords decrier that the people assembling the bikes have very little input into the sourcing of components, or the R&D that went into the Team Carbon........


Take the builder out of the equation and then look at the quality of the product. The Watchdog Programme did that as well as examining the ease of assembly etc etc.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You ensure that the kit is supplied with adequate tools and instructions and that it *is engineered to a quality that allows the bike to be assembled correctly.*


In a perfect would what you say would be done but hallo this is the real world. 
Joe public could buy a quality bike for £200 (or whatever it costs) if that was what he wanted to do but if he chooses to buy a cheap Flatpack bike from tesco / asda - what do you do. My point is that he does have that choice and chooses to buy the cheap rubbish.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> In a perfect would what you say would be done but hallo this is the real world.
> Joe public could buy a quality bike for £200 (or whatever it costs) if that was what he wanted to do but if he chooses to buy a cheap Flatpack bike from tesco / asda - what do you do. My point is that he does have that choice and chooses to buy the cheap rubbish.


He should not be sold rubbish though. To the layperson a £70 bike from Tesco or Asda will function in the same way as a £400 pound bike from his LBS. If I bought a cheep car I would still expect it to last longer than a month and would expect a level of engineering competency put into the components. You do not get that with the Tesco and Asda bikes. If they were cars they would not be allowed to be sold.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> He should not be sold rubbish though. To the layperson a £70 bike from Tesco or Asda will function in the same way as a £400 pound bike from his LBS. If I bought a cheep car I would still expect it to last longer than a month and would expect a level of engineering competency put into the components. You do not get that with the Tesco and Asda bikes. If they were cars they would not be allowed to be sold.


Are they really that bad. 
Thats the thing i have a problem getting my head round.
They may not be suited to you hammering up ben nevis but surely for joe public nipping down to the co-op they are adequate.
Or am i wrong


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Are they really that bad.
> Thats the thing i have a problem getting my head round.
> They may not be suited to you hammering up ben nevis but surely for joe public nipping down to the co-op they are adequate.
> Or am i wrong



They are really that bad yes.


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So flat pack is ok for those capable to assemble but not for those not competent.
> If joe public is attracted by the idea of a flat pack bike and all the fun of bolting it together what do you do ?




Ok 2 points:

1. The Cube came with proper tools and instructions, and the bike is of sufficient quality to assemble and adjust without drama

2. Not many Joe Publics will be dropping over a grand on a flat pack bike. I'd confidently state that the vast majority of such purchases are made by people who already know their way around bikes


----------



## rowan 46 (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Are they really that bad.
> Thats the thing i have a problem getting my head round.
> They may not be suited to you hammering up ben nevis but surely for joe public nipping down to the co-op they are adequate.
> Or am i wrong



No you are not wrong I have seen plenty of kids riding their cheap bikes bought from tesco round the park and lots of people riding theirs up to the shops, but where everybody is right is these bikes look like mountain bikes and they are not suitable for mountain biking. most have a little sticker saying so. In which case its just extra weight and complication for people. But for nipping round the shops and cycling round the park most of them do fine.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> No you are not wrong I have seen plenty of kids riding their cheap bikes bought from tesco round the park and lots of people riding theirs up to the shops, but where everybody is right is these bikes look like mountain bikes and they are not suitable for mountain biking. most have a little sticker saying so. In which case its just extra weight and complication for people. But for nipping round the shops and cycling round the park most of them do fine.



A little extra weight? The one I have the displeasure of working on from time to time is as heavy as a DH bike!!!


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They are really that bad yes.


Better cancel my ben nevis ride planned for this weekend then


----------



## rowan 46 (7 Jul 2011)

when I was a kid I had a royal enfield bike that weighed a ton you've all gone soft


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> No you are not wrong I have seen plenty of kids riding their cheap bikes bought from tesco round the park and lots of people riding theirs up to the shops, but where everybody is right is these bikes look like mountain bikes and they are not suitable for mountain biking. most have a little sticker saying so. In which case its just extra weight and complication for people. But for nipping round the shops and cycling round the park most of them do fine.



Therein is another problem. They look like MTB's. How many people will scan the frame for a small sticker which says not suitable for off road use when they have a bike with suspension at the front (or even rear as well) and it looks the part. It is to my mind tantamount to fraud. How about buying a TV that has has HDMI ports that fail within minutes of a signal going through them, or fridges that will not stay cold? Unacceptable? Of course. So why accept such poor quality from a object pretending to be a MTB.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> when I was a kid I had a royal enfield bike that weighed a ton you've all gone soft



How long did it last for? IIRC those things were bomb proof.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Ok 2 points:
> 
> 1. The Cube came with proper tools and instructions, and the bike is of sufficient quality to assemble and adjust without drama
> 
> 2. Not many Joe Publics will be dropping over a grand on a flat pack bike. I'd confidently state that the vast majority of such purchases are made by people who already know their way around bikes


Yes so your getting people who dont know their way around a bike buying a bike of insufficient quality without proper tools and instructions.
Why ?
Because they want to. (same with joe publics love affair with flat pack furniture and the 1000s of botched diy jobs happening as we speak. More power to joe public - if he wants to buy cheap flatpack rubbish then they arnt going to listen to anyone saying otherwise.


----------



## benb (7 Jul 2011)

This is worth a read.
http://road.cc/content/feature/12692-scrapheap-challenge



> We now had five bikes with no brakes at all, one with a tacoed back wheel (the pilot reckoned it gave some braking in the turns as it rubbed against the chainstays), one bike with bent forks, one with collapsed front suspension. I had no useable gears and the saddle kept pointing to the sky no matter how tight I did the bolt up.
> 
> They were certainly not in a fit state to take on The Wall trail, so we retired back to the van and awaited the arrival of the last team member, who was on foot for the last 3km due to his catastrophic fork failure.
> I have to admit to being surprised at how many had actually finished the ride, though the others pointed out that *the above list of damage had occurred within the bikes first 11 miles from new. As for the question of whether these supermarket brand bikes are capable of anything a real mountain bike is…well, for a short, uncomfortable and terrifying period, they are!* Assuming that you're willing to buy a new one each time – or spend some serious hours on repairs – you can take a BSO on proper MTB trails. We overtook people going up. And going down, but that was more by default than choice!
> ...



my bold


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes so your getting people who dont know their way around a bike buying a bike of insufficient quality without proper tools and instructions.
> Why ?
> Because they want to. (same with joe publics love affair with flat pack furniture and the 1000s of botched diy jobs happening as we speak. More power to joe public - if he wants to buy cheap flatpack rubbish then they arnt going to listen to anyone saying otherwise.



It isn't because they want to an more because they don't see why they shouldn't. IMHO.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> This is worth a read.
> http://road.cc/conte...pheap-challenge
> 
> 
> ...



Sweet gods of mercy - they took those bikes around Whites Level at Afan - They are sooooooo much braver than me. I struggle with that on my cube!!!!


----------



## jackm (7 Jul 2011)

Totally confused now, for the last 12 months I was convinced my Apollo twin bouncer was a bso, bit hey, it did over 1000 miles in 9 months, regularly went out of adjustment though. I took it as a flat pack as Halfords wanted 2 days to build it( they must have had a good selling day that day!!) And managed to get it up and running in a couple of hours,adjusted half decently , it was all part of a valuable learning process. Now I have replaced it with a GT Aggressor xc2 I can certainly appreciate the difference, also looking forward to the next upgrade to road bike


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

jackm said:


> Totally confused now, for the last 12 months I was convinced my Apollo twin bouncer was a bso, bit hey, it did over 1000 miles in 9 months, regularly went out of adjustment though. I took it as a flat pack as Halfords wanted 2 days to build it( they must have had a good selling day that day!!) And managed to get it up and running in a couple of hours,adjusted half decently , it was all part of a valuable learning process. Now I have replaced it with a GT Aggressor xc2 I can certainly appreciate the difference, also looking forward to the next upgrade to road bike



Lets say the jury is split over Apollo bikes. Compared to a British Eagle (or the like) they are like high quality machines.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jul 2011)

jackm said:


> Totally confused now, for the last 12 months I was convinced my Apollo twin bouncer was a bso, bit hey, it did over 1000 miles in 9 months, regularly went out of adjustment though. I took it as a flat pack as Halfords wanted 2 days to build it( they must have had a good selling day that day!!) And managed to get it up and running in a couple of hours,adjusted half decently , it was all part of a valuable learning process. Now I have replaced it with a GT Aggressor xc2 I can certainly appreciate the difference, also looking forward to the next upgrade to road bike



Halford's bikes are not bso's. They do at least have half decent components. They certainly don't have plastic brake levers or bolts.
The problem with Halford's bikes is that the majority of mechanics in Halfords are next to useless and you will see on this forum
time and again people saying when you buy a bike from Halford's take it to a LBS to get it set up properly.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It isn't because they want to an more because they don't see why they shouldn't. IMHO.


Maybe they should.
Teach them their way around a bike better than anything else will. Its the way most of us learnt.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

jackm said:


> Totally confused now, for the last 12 months I was convinced my Apollo twin bouncer was a bso, bit hey, it did over 1000 miles in 9 months, regularly went out of adjustment though. I took it as a flat pack as Halfords wanted 2 days to build it( they must have had a good selling day that day!!) And managed to get it up and running in a couple of hours,adjusted half decently , it was all part of a valuable learning process. Now I have replaced it with a GT Aggressor xc2 I can certainly appreciate the difference, also looking forward to the next upgrade to road bike


Dont listen to anyone - apollo are fantastic bikes.


----------



## Bicycle (7 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> This is worth a read.
> http://road.cc/conte...pheap-challenge
> 
> 
> ...




The article is very, very funny and will provide plenty of ammunition for one side of this discussion. Perhaps rightly.

I think it's fabulous that someone took the trouble to do what they did here.

However, it reminds me up to a point of some larks I used to get up to racing Citroen 2CVs.

The jape was similar: Taking a machine designed for anything other than the use to which it was to be put - and then caning it to the flag or to destruction.

You could argue (and I would) that the 2CV was in truth an extremely well-engineered car and therefore not a CSO [car-shaped object]. 

However, it was not designed for the particular stresses of track racing and even with the best mechanics there was a lot of grief trying to get one round a track for the whole of a 24-hour race.

The steering arms would bend under the stress of racing speeds. I never saw that happen in many years to a car driven as intended. But at racing speeds they turned to butter. That's on a car that was in production with little modification and a fine reliability record for many decades. Many teams welded angle iron to the arms to hold then in position. Not a fix that's popular at McLaren....

There were many other areas where the cars were modified to allow them to complete 24 racing hours.

I do not argue for a moment that the bicycles in the posted article are quality products, but the argument isn't strengthened by putting them through the 2-wheeled equivalent of a Special Forces Selection Process and demonstrating that they're not up to it.

Great article though.... Well done finding it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Maybe they should.
> Teach them their way around a bike better than anything else will. Its the way most of us learnt.



Sadly by the number I see in skips, landfill sites and abandoned it seems to teach the lay populous that bikes last a few months if you are lucky and they are not worth riding.


----------



## Moodyman (7 Jul 2011)

Apollos are not great - heavy and need constant adjusting, but they're perfectly serviceable. 

My 9-year old's bike is an Apollo hardtail and I'm secretly ashamed when he has to ride that with me on our 10-15 mile rides. Them little legs having to propel that heap of iron whereas I'm cruising on my 7005 aluminium frame. But, hey, it'll make him stronger right?

Still, as AngelFish and Ian, I wouldn't class them as BSOs.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Moodyman said:


> Apollos are not great - heavy and need constant adjusting, but they're perfectly serviceable.
> 
> My 9-year old's bike is an Apollo hardtail and I'm secretly ashamed when he has to ride that with me on our 10-15 mile rides. Them little legs having to propel that heap of iron whereas I'm cruising on my 7005 aluminium frame. But, hey, it'll make him stronger right?
> 
> Still, as AngelFish and Ian, I wouldn't class them as BSOs.



They are the borderline between BSO and Bike IMHO.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Sadly by the number I see in skips, landfill sites and abandoned it seems to teach the lay populous that bikes last a few months if you are lucky and they are not worth riding.


Least it should have taught them is dont but another flat pack bike from asda / tescos.
Wish i saw some in skips - now i have cancelled ben nevis i will have to pop down my local landfill site.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I do not argue for a moment that the bicycles in the posted article are quality products, but the argument isn't strengthened by putting them through the 2-wheeled equivalent of a Special Forces Selection Process and demonstrating that they're not up to it.
> 
> Great article though.... Well done finding it.



I think it would be called a stress test. Putting the bike through a lifetime of abuse in a short space of time. Sadly most bikes ended their lives crippled. Less Special Forces selection and more basic training IMHO. (Assuming that most people will treat these things as MTB's)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Least it should have taught them is dont but another flat pack bike from asda / tescos.
> Wish i saw some in skips - now i have cancelled ben nevis i will have to pop down my local landfill site.



I think I understand what you mean in your first sentence. Next time I am at the Cycling centre I will take my camera and post a few picks.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think I understand what you mean in your first sentence. Next time I am at the Cycling centre I will take my camera and post a few picks.


whats at the cycling centre ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> whats at the cycling centre ?



LMAO. Recycling even


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They are the borderline between BSO and Bike IMHO.


I disagree. 
I own an apollo and its excellent. 20 miles a day and its excellent.
The - you will realise the poor quality when you upgrade to a decent bike - arguement i dont agree with.
In absolute terms it is excellent and in relative terms ; well comparisons are odious.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> LMAO. Recycling even


gotcha - i thougth you meant bicycling center.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I disagree.
> I own an apollo and its excellent* in you opinion*. 20 miles a day and its excellent.
> The - you will realise the poor quality when you upgrade to a decent bike - arguement i dont agree with.
> In absolute terms it is excellent and in relative terms ; well comparisons are odious.



FTFY


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I disagree.
> I own an apollo and its excellent. 20 miles a day and its excellent.
> The - you will realise the poor quality when you upgrade to a decent bike - arguement i dont agree with.
> In absolute terms it is excellent and in relative terms ; well comparisons are odious.





I also disagree.
I have had an Apollo and my wife currently has one.
They are not the greatest bikes by a long shot. But are at least made to a far better standard then a Tesco/Asda cheapo special and if looked after will last a good while.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

ianrauk said:


> I also disagree.
> I have had an Apollo and my wife currently has one.
> They are not the greatest bikes by a long shot. But are at least made to a far better standard then a Tesco/Asda cheapo special and if looked after will last a good while.


Maybe I should have said the transition from BSO to Bike rather than borderline?


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes so your getting people who dont know their way around a bike buying a bike of insufficient quality without proper tools and instructions.
> Why ?
> Because they want to. (same with joe publics love affair with flat pack furniture and the 1000s of botched diy jobs happening as we speak. More power to joe public - if he wants to buy cheap flatpack rubbish then they arnt going to listen to anyone saying otherwise.



Fine, as you say if they want to ... just as long as it is an informed choice. Labeling these as BSOs is an attempt to inform people's choice.


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Dont listen to anyone - apollo are fantastic bikes.



Apart from when they're not.


----------



## benb (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Least it should have taught them is dont but another flat pack bike from asda / tescos.
> Wish i saw some in skips - now i have cancelled ben nevis i will have to pop down my local landfill site.



Unfortunately, for many, it will teach them that cycling is an uncomfortable chore so best stick with the car.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Fine, as you say if they want to ... just as long as it is an informed choice. Labeling these as BSOs is an attempt to inform people's choice.


By the same token b & q should sell there electric drills with the warning "Carefull - you could seriously muck your house up with this drill"
Surely somewhere down the line we credit joe public with some basic inteligence and the responsibility to go with it.


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> By the same token b & q should sell there electric drills with the warning "Carefull - you could seriously muck your house up with this drill"
> Surely somewhere down the line we credit joe public with some basic inteligence and the responsibility to go with it.



No, it's entirely different. It'd be like B&Q selling an own brand value 12v Nicad cordless drill styled to look like a 24v DeWalt Li-ion cordless hammer drill...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> By the same token b & q should sell there electric drills with the warning "Carefull - you could seriously muck your house up with this drill"
> Surely somewhere down the line we credit joe public with some basic inteligence and the responsibility to go with it.



Maybe I am a little old fashioned but if I buy something from a reputable shop I expect it to be of satisfactory quality and feel I should not have to worry about its' ability to carry out its' intended purpose. There is, as far as I can see, anything unintelligent about that line of thinking. If I by Smartprice beans as opposed to Heinz I expect them to still be haricot beans in a tomato(ish) sauce albeit of poorer taste. What I do not expect is a tin of reject quality husks in water.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Maybe I am a little old fashioned but if I buy something from a reputable shop I expect it to be of satisfactory quality and feel I should not have to worry about its' ability to carry out its' intended purpose. There is, as far as I can see, anything unintelligent about that line of thinking. If I by Smartprice beans as opposed to Heinz I expect them to still be haricot beans in a tomato(ish) sauce albeit of poorer taste. What I do not expect is a tin of reject quality husks in water.


So your saying tesco / asda should sell them clearly labelled as flat pack rubbish bikes. 
We all know that isnt going to happen.
Retailers are operating under the constraints of trading standards etc and accordingly we can assume they are labelled acurately - the rest is up to the consumer.
Just as a housewife squeezes a mellon to check it for quality the same burden of responsibilty lies with the bike consumer to check what they are buying.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So your saying tesco / asda should sell them clearly labelled as flat pack rubbish bikes.
> We all know that isnt going to happen.
> Retailers are operating under the constraints of trading standards etc and accordingly we can assume they are labelled acurately - the rest is up to the consumer.
> Just as a housewife squeezes a mellon to check it for quality the same burden of responsibilty lies with the bike consumer to check what they are buying.


I'm saying the bike should not allowed to be sold in the first place. That little sticker hidden on the frame is how they get past TS. Rather like a con that wasn't a con on ebay a few years ago. Xbox box for sale £20.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> A little extra weight? The one I have the displeasure of working on from time to time is as heavy as a DH bike!!!



I refer the honourable gentlemen back to my experiences of the "Rhino" dual sus. A kid's bike AS HEAVY AS AN ADULT'S STEEL FRAMED HYBRID. 

That's not right.

FWIW, Mrs Monkey has an Apollo. It has a rigid (but pretty heavy) "Hi-Ten" frame. 5 speeds at the back, two chainrings, indexed thumbshifters. It's heavy, its wheels are heavy, its brakes are crap (but do the job if adjusted every week to couple of weeks). Its gears are ok, but the derailleur hanger is mounted in the dropout of the rear wheel - an arrangement on this bike that makes wheel removal and replacement a pain, and means a large amount of torque is needed on the rear wheel bolts.

It's not completely shoot, largely because I know what I'm about and can mitigate its worst qualities. She'd have been better spending £100 on a 2nd hand Raleigh Pioneer, or similar 90s era hybrid or MTB though. She'd probably have had change for some nice upgrades too. 

And in fact, that's what she does ride now. The Apollo sits in the shed awaiting conversion into something more useful.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I'm saying the bike should not allowed to be sold in the first place. That little sticker hidden on the frame is how they get past TS. Rather like a con that wasn't a con on ebay a few years ago. Xbox box for sale £20.



Whatever happened to buyer beware. Dosnt the bike buyer have any responsibility for thinking about what they are doing , what they are buying.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I refer the honourable gentlemen back to my experiences of the "Rhino" dual sus. A kid's bike AS HEAVY AS AN ADULT'S STEEL FRAMED HYBRID.
> 
> That's not right.
> 
> ...


That sounds pretty much like the Apollo that I had. You had to plan and emergency stop and down hill braking was a distant dream.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Whatever happened to buyer beware. Dosnt the bike buyer have any responsibility for thinking about what they are doing , what they are buying.



Caveat Emptor - The battle cry of dodgy salespeople everywhere. We do live in the 21st Century now don't we? We should be able to buy products that are what they claim to be. Asda and Tesco sell great value TV's, cameras, phones, DVD's, food, clothing et al so a reasonable person might expect the same from their bikes. Sadly this is not the case.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

This site is well worth a look at.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Caveat Emptor - The battle cry of dodgy salespeople everywhere. We do live in the 21st Century now don't we? We should be able to buy products that are what they claim to be. Asda and Tesco sell great value TV's, cameras, phones, DVD's, food, clothing et al so a reasonable person might expect the same from their bikes. Sadly this is not the case.


Consumers are well protected. If they were not so protected then maybe they would take their responsibility to check products before they buy them more seriously than they do at present. So long as they can return stuff carte blanche wheres the incentive to take responsibility for checking the goods and researching the product before buying. 
Consumer rights are all well and good etc but they might also go partway to explain a culture of lazy buying.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That sounds pretty much like the Apollo that I had. You had to plan and emergency stop and down hill braking was a distant dream.



Ha! This one isn't quite that bad. I hate the cantis on it though - the arms are pressed out of sheet metal, by the looks of things - flexy, and they need regular adjustment if the bike is ridden frequently (weekly or fortnightly). Plastic brake levers :/

I'd not trust the brand again, personally. Buying new, I'd go for a Carrera subway, or an EBC Courier, both of which look like bikes with sensible specs for the price - £200 ish, or £150 in the sales, if you're lucky.

As I've said frequently, buying 2nd hand, I'd keep an eye out for a looked after 80s or 90s hybrid. Buy for £20-£50, spend £30-£40 on new v-brake levers & Deore or Acera v brakes. Buy one with 7 speed drivetrain, (8 at the most) as it'll last forever if looked after (and you can get integrated levers to match that setup). 

Upgrade the wheels as they need it (Exal LX17 on Deore is what I built for Mrs Monkey) or as finances allow. Look after the bike & it'll be a nice runaround for decades more.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Ha! This one isn't quite that bad. I hate the cantis on it though - the arms are pressed out of sheet metal, by the looks of things - flexy, and they need regular adjustment if the bike is ridden frequently (weekly or fortnightly). Plastic brake levers :/
> 
> I'd not trust the brand again, personally. Buying new, I'd go for a Carrera subway, or an EBC Courier, both of which look like bikes with sensible specs for the price - £200 ish, or £150 in the sales, if you're lucky.
> 
> ...


The brakes are easily upgradeable - ive changed mine to "line pull" i think theyre called.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Consumers are well protected. If they were not so protected then maybe they would take their responsibility to check products before they buy them more seriously than they do at present. So long as they can return stuff carte blanche wheres the incentive to take responsibility for checking the goods and researching the product before buying.
> Consumer rights are all well and good etc but they might also go partway to explain a culture of lazy buying.



How many bikes are returned under these laws? From what I see not that many. People accept that what they have bought is how the machine should be as they quite probably have no baseline for the product. That is unfair on the consumer. As you become more interested in something of course more research goes into the next purchase but I maintain that a little sticker saying not suitable for off road riding on what pretends to be a MTB is hiding behind the law.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The brakes are easily upgradeable - ive changed mine to "line pull" i think theyre called.



Linear pull, indeed - they're what I refer to as v-brakes further up.

In the case of Mrs. Monkey's bike, the raft of stuff that would need changing to make it almost as nice as a bike from the early 1990s simply didn't make an upgrade sensible.

Her Pioneer has a better frame, had better wheels than the Apollo even before I changed them[1], had a seven speed drivetrain that was in good nick & matched the 7 speed STi V brake levers I had in mind for it. It's even a jaunty purple colour. If we exclude the wheels (which weren't really a necessary upgrade) the whole thing cost less than £100, and less time in swearing at crappy components in the shed. Hell, people will even give you these bikes (un upgraded, of course, but normally ok) for free, sometimes.

It's a crazy world.

I'd not touch a Tesco/Asda bike with a bargepole. I'd be circumspect about an Apollo, based on past experiences. I couldn't recommend either, in good conscience, if someone asked my opinion on them.


[1] Although I still need to build a front, at some point. No urgency, as the one on it is fine.


----------



## blockend (7 Jul 2011)

The question is how much of a bike can anyone expect for sixty quid? I went to the local supermarket last night and the contents of_ a hand basket_ came to fifty.
The first road going bike I owned was a knock off of the Raleigh Twenty shopper, I don't even remember the make. The chrome on the rims was like foil (the shop replaced the wheels under warranty) and the standard of kit was pretty grim. It didn't stop me fitting chopper handlebars and riding all over the place with my mates until I got a Carlton racer.

I don't believe anyone buys a supermarket bike expecting to tour Europe on it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

blockend said:


> The question is how much of a bike can anyone expect for sixty quid? I went to the local supermarket last night and the contents of_ a hand basket_ came to fifty.
> The first road going bike I owned was a knock off of the Raleigh Twenty shopper, I don't even remember the make. The chrome on the rims was like foil (the shop replaced the wheels under warranty) and the standard of kit was pretty grim. It didn't stop me fitting chopper handlebars and riding all over the place with my mates until I got a Carlton racer.
> 
> *I don't believe anyone buys a supermarket bike expecting to tour Europe on it.*



Neither do I but I believe they buy them expecting them to work!


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Neither do I but I believe they buy them expecting them to work!


Presumably they do work otherwise tesco / asda woudnt sell them.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Linear pull, indeed - they're what I refer to as v-brakes further up.
> 
> In the case of Mrs. Monkey's bike, the raft of stuff that would need changing to make it almost as nice as a bike from the early 1990s simply didn't make an upgrade sensible.
> 
> ...



Why would you feel the need to upgrade the brake levers - arnt they all the same ?


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Why would you feel the need to upgrade the brake levers - arnt they all the same ?



V brakes require a lever with a different amount of cable pull to that of cantilever brakes, unless you buy short armed "Mini-V" type brakes.

A few levers can operate both (they have an adjustable part inside that must be set correctly though).

I like v-brakes, they're easier to set up than cantis - and easy setup is what I look for on a bike I won't ride, but will need to maintain.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> V brakes require a lever with a different amount of cable pull to that of cantilever brakes, unless you buy short armed "Mini-V" type brakes.
> 
> A few levers can operate both (they have an adjustable part inside that must be set correctly though).
> 
> I like v-brakes, they're easier to set up than cantis - and easy setup is what I look for on a bike I won't ride, but will need to maintain.



Thanks for the info. I will investigate this. The donor bike is an ammaco - with hind sight i might have been better off building the ammaco up rather than the apollo but i assumed apollo was the better ones.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jul 2011)

blockend said:


> The question is how much of a bike can anyone expect for sixty quid? I went to the local supermarket last night and the contents of_ a hand basket_ came to fifty.
> The first road going bike I owned was a knock off of the Raleigh Twenty shopper, I don't even remember the make. The chrome on the rims was like foil (the shop replaced the wheels under warranty) and the standard of kit was pretty grim. It didn't stop me fitting chopper handlebars and riding all over the place with my mates until I got a Carlton racer.
> 
> I don't believe anyone buys a supermarket bike expecting to tour Europe on it.



I can beleive someone buys a supermarket bike expecting to tour the car park on it. 

Most of them would be unrideable after one or two circuits and a quick bump or two up a kerb.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Presumably they do work otherwise tesco / asda woudnt sell them.



As on old Army buddy of mine used to say. "Presumption is the Mother of all **** ups"
Edit - I mean he was ex army not that we were in Army together.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thanks for the info. I will investigate this.



No problem - Sheldon Brown has a page that explains the difference quite well;



> Conventional brake levers used with direct-pull cantilevers will usually not pull enough cable to stop in wet conditions without bottoming out against the handlebars. In dry conditions, they either won't work, or will grab too suddenly.
> Direct-pull brake levers used with any other type of brakes will feel nice and solid when you squeeze them, but due to their lower mechanical advantage you'll need to squeeze twice as hard to stop as you should, so unless you are a lightweight rider with gorilla-like paws, this combination isn't safe either.


(Direct Pull = V Brake = Linear Pull Brakes) 
http://www.sheldonbr...nti-direct.html

V-Brakes are great - even the Deore & Acera ones near the bottom of Shimano's range set up quickly & easily, and stop great - but you *need* v-brake levers.



> The donor bike is an ammaco - with hind sight i might have been better off building the ammaco up rather than the apollo but i assumed apollo was the better ones.



You'll learn a lot from building the bike up in any case - ride it a bit, see what you think. If it's not a suspension frame, the worst it will be is a bit heavy (hopefully they've junked those derailleur hangers secured by the rear wheel since Mrs Monkey's was made).

You don't need to spend a fortune on them, but good quality levers & brakes & decent gears &c will make the experience a lot more pleasant, and save you many hours in the shed. 

From my own experience, Deore & Acera in the shimano range work great, and won't break the bank.

Mrs Monkey's Pioneer had a seven speed cassette at the back (Shimano 200cx, I think) and triple chainrings. I was able to get integrated V-brake & 7speed shifter (Acera) for about £20, iirc. Much nicer than the ones that were on it too.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jul 2011)

Do we accept the Pioneer as the world's first hybrid?


----------



## blockend (8 Jul 2011)

Not having read all 27 pages, has everyone agreed what a BSO is? Do you mean a double sprung 50 lb behemoth, or simply any cheap bike? And what price point denotes cheap and is it just supermarkets who sell them or anywhere that isn't an LBS?

My sister-in-law bought a hybrid from Decathlon a few years ago for around £70 (I forget the exact amount) and joined my wife and I on a Scottish tour. Although she was/is a complete non-cyclist nothing broke and the only maintenance I did was the stuff you'd expect like adjusting cables for brake block wear. It had unbranded equipment but derailleurs changed gear, wheels revolved, brakes braked, the usual things you'd expect a bike to do.
It was not much heavier than similar bikes and she kept up pretty well and seemed to enjoy herself.

I'd suggest that it isn't price per se that makes a bike bad but the expectations one might have of it. Do bikes really break after one trip round the car park? At the very cheapest level they almost match bike hire prices, something to roll up a few miles of country trail and back as a holiday expenditure, a consumer item, a bit of fun?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Jul 2011)

A BSO will be heavy, have componants made of cheese by a company no cyclist will have heard of. It will need serious maintenance every few days if not hours. It will look like something it is not. It will die within 300Miles. It will be stupidly cheep from new.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Jul 2011)

blockend said:


> Not having read all 27 pages, has everyone agreed what a BSO is? Do you mean a double sprung 50 lb behemoth, or simply any cheap bike? And what price point denotes cheap and is it just supermarkets who sell them or anywhere that isn't an LBS?
> 
> My sister-in-law bought a *hybrid from Decathlon a few years ago for around £70* (I forget the exact amount) and joined my wife and I on a Scottish tour. Although she was/is a complete non-cyclist nothing broke and the only maintenance I did was the stuff you'd expect like adjusting cables for brake block wear. It had unbranded equipment but derailleurs changed gear, wheels revolved, brakes braked, the usual things you'd expect a bike to do.
> It was not much heavier than similar bikes and she kept up pretty well and seemed to enjoy herself.
> ...



The very definition of a cheap bike. Clearly not a BSO.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jul 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Do we accept the Pioneer as the world's first hybrid?



I think Tony Hadland makes that argument in his history of Raleigh;

http://www.hadland.m...m#_Toc485366719

"Raleigh *thus effectively invented the hybrid* [with the Pioneer model] and therefore had difficulty obtaining suitable tyres. Whereas today every Taiwanese tyre manufacturer makes hybrid tyres, the only supplier in 1990 was Vredestein in the Netherlands."


----------



## apollo179 (8 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As on old Army buddy of mine used to say. "Presumption is the Mother of all **** ups"
> Edit - I mean he was ex army not that we were in Army together.


My old army buddy told me that anyone who dosnt know there way around a bike and goes to there local supermarket and buys a bike with the forks on the wrong way round with 
derailleurs made of plastic etc etc is an unmitigated idiot who cannot be helped and does not deserve any symypathy.
I also mean he was ex army not that we were in Army together.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> My old army buddy told me that anyone who dosnt know there way around a bike and goes to there local supermarket and buys a bike with the forks on the wrong way round with
> derailleurs made of plastic etc etc is an unmitigated idiot who cannot be helped and does not deserve any symypathy.
> I also mean he was ex army not that we were in Army together.


Wow and you remember the quote word for word! I must say it sounds very much like a military quote!


----------



## apollo179 (8 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> No problem - Sheldon Brown has a page that explains the difference quite well;
> 
> [/list](Direct Pull = V Brake = Linear Pull Brakes)
> http://www.sheldonbr...nti-direct.html
> ...


My donor ammaco does have stubby brake levers so i will switch them over. To be fair the v in line brakes work fine with the existing "normal" levers - light and responsive , compared to the original center pull canti brakes which were rubbish.


----------



## apollo179 (8 Jul 2011)

blockend said:


> Not having read all 27 pages, has everyone agreed what a BSO is? Do you mean a double sprung 50 lb behemoth, or simply any cheap bike? And what price point denotes cheap and is it just supermarkets who sell them or anywhere that isn't an LBS?
> 
> My sister-in-law bought a hybrid from Decathlon a few years ago for around £70 (I forget the exact amount) and joined my wife and I on a Scottish tour. Although she was/is a complete non-cyclist nothing broke and the only maintenance I did was the stuff you'd expect like adjusting cables for brake block wear. It had unbranded equipment but derailleurs changed gear, wheels revolved, brakes braked, the usual things you'd expect a bike to do.
> It was not much heavier than similar bikes and she kept up pretty well and seemed to enjoy herself.
> ...


My definition for BSO would be.
Not fit for purpose , excluding human error assembly related faults. 
By which definition a cheap bike but adequate for little jonny and little jenny to play on is not a bso.
"a *hybrid from Decathlon"* is a good bike - far from a bso.


----------



## apollo179 (8 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Wow and you remember the quote word for word! I must say it sounds very much like a military quote!


I appreciate your testimony to its authenticity.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I appreciate your testimony to its authenticity.


As I appreciate your er, er, sorry I was taught not to lie.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> My donor ammaco does have stubby brake levers so i will switch them over. To be fair the v in line brakes work fine with the existing "normal" levers - light and responsive , compared to the original center pull canti brakes which were rubbish.



Cantis are a faff to set up, but once done, they work pretty well (given decent pads, cables, outers). V brakes do away with the need to tinker though, as the mechanical advantage is preset.

If your original levers weren't for v's, I'd be a bit worried about them, tbh - the cable pull is very different. The brakes are definitely full size v-brakes, not mini vs?


----------



## apollo179 (8 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Cantis are a faff to set up, but once done, they work pretty well (given decent pads, cables, outers). V brakes do away with the need to tinker though, as the mechanical advantage is preset.
> 
> If your original levers weren't for v's, I'd be a bit worried about them, tbh - the cable pull is very different. The brakes are definitely full size v-brakes, not mini vs?


Not sure if theyre full or mini to be honest - they look something like this.




Any road - the original center pull canti brakes were rubbish - you could hang off them with very little affect. I will fit the corresponding levers.
I might have originally considered building up the ammoco but it was without the seat + seat post - it uses a wider guage seat post than apollo or anything i have lying about.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

So, is this a BSO then?  

You can buy it if you want. I love the description..


I am selling a home built chopper, has a totaly hand built frame to a high quility. totally one off and can garentee no other like it in the world, is black and british racing green paint job, grabs loads of attention of any one who sees it, this is your chance to grab a one off hand built low rider push bike, totally unique and a great price


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> So, is this a BSO then?
> 
> You can buy it if you want. I love the description..
> 
> ...



It's like a chopperised 'bent! That can't be comfortable to ride...


----------



## tyred (15 Jul 2011)

Perfect for riding over speed bumps.


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2011)

tyred said:


> Perfect for riding over speed bumps.



Lol yeah, if you're a big fan of spinal surgery


----------



## HLaB (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> So, is this a BSO then?
> 
> You can buy it if you want. I love the description..
> 
> ...



Thats an Object but I'm not sure if its Bike Shaped


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

HLaB said:


> Thats an Object but I'm not sure if its Bike Shaped



Non existent ground clearance!!! The ride need to watch out for anything large than a grain on sand!


----------



## HLaB (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Non existent ground clearance!!! The ride need to watch out for anything large than a grain on sand!



I wonder if that mud guard is effective down there


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

HLaB said:


> I wonder if that mud guard is effective down there



LOL


----------



## apollo179 (17 Jul 2011)

One for all the forks on back to front fans :
Ebay Item number: 320726450777




Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## abo (17 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> One for all the forks on back to front fans :
> Ebay Item number: 320726450777
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm doesn't look right


----------



## summerdays (17 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Hmm doesn't look right



The forks are not on back to front ... but bent maybe ... ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> One for all the forks on back to front fans :
> Ebay Item number: 320726450777
> 
> 
> ...


Curve of fork is correct. I would venture a bent head tube.


----------



## apollo179 (17 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> The forks are not on back to front ... but bent maybe ... ?


Yes - you are quite correct. Well spotted.


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Curve of fork is correct. I would venture a bent head tube.




I think just bent forks at the area where it bifurcates. I don't think a headtube could be that bent and still allow forks through it. Whatever though it is wrong wrong wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> I think just bent forks at the area where it bifurcates. I don't think a headtube could be that bent and still allow forks through it. Whatever though it is wrong wrong wrong.


Doh. I am still brain dead. I mean the part of the fork that fits into the head tube.


----------



## apollo179 (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Curve of fork is correct. I would venture a bent head tube.



Ebay description says front wheel is buckled so presumably front impact damage - bent where it bifurcates (online dictionary ?)
Think ill give it a miss.


----------



## apollo179 (17 Jul 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> I think just bent forks at the area where it bifurcates. I don't think a headtube could be that bent and still allow forks through it. Whatever though it is wrong wrong wrong.


Agreed. These forks bend easily. One could probably bend it back by hand but of course it would be permanently weakened.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed. These forks bend easily. One could probably bend it back by hand but of course it would be permanently weakened.



In fairness it does say parts only  He is not trying to sell it as a working machine.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

I see the bso has made a return so I thought I would bump the thread so the new guy could read the thread. Strangely enough the general consensus on "newby requiring help" is that it isn't useful for newbies. which begs the question I asked at the beginning of the thread. Why is it in the abbreviations sticky? 2nd point how is it even possible to ride a bso. 3rd and most importantly if a person is riding a bso and not a bicycle does this mean he is not a cyclist and if not what is he ?


----------



## HLaB (24 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> The forks are not on back to front ... but bent maybe ... ?



Yeah, that is what I was thinking too. If the forks had been on back to fron the brake mounts would be behind the forks.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I see the bso has made a return so I thought I would bump the thread so the new guy could read the thread. Strangely enough the general consensus on "newby requiring help" is that it isn't useful for newbies. which begs the question I asked at the beginning of the thread. Why is it in the abbreviations sticky? 2nd point how is it even possible to ride a bso. 3rd and most importantly if a person is riding a bso and not a bicycle does this mean he is not a cyclist and if not what is he ?


Any newbie to a subject ends up learning a new language. We talk of BB's, SPD's, STi's, and quote many numbers 11-32, 22-33-44.et al.
All of these things are mysterious at first but soon make sense. BSO is just another TLA. 
Most people would call a BSO rider a POB.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Any newbie to a subject ends up learning a new language. We talk of BB's, SPD's, STi's, and quote many numbers 11-32, 22-33-44.et al.
> All of these things are mysterious at first but soon make sense. BSO is just another TLA.
> Most people would call a BSO rider a POB.



Bike snobs might I wouldn't


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Bike snobs might I wouldn't


I have a new road bike I bought for £200. How can I be a bike snob? 
Maybe we could ask Shaun for a BSO forum.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

maybe you could answer the question. considering the initialism is only used in cycling by people who ride better machines how can it be anything other. As to most people would call them pob that's another disparaging term used by cyclists to differentiate themselves from people who ride cheap bikes. I've never heard the term used outside the cycling set so it can't be most people


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> maybe you could answer the question. considering the initialism is only used in cycling by people who ride better machines how can it be anything other. As to most people would call them pob that's another disparaging term used by cyclists to differentiate themselves from people who ride cheap bikes. I've never heard the term used outside the cycling set so it can't be most people


Sorry "most people who cycle". The terms mentioned are commonly used by the cycling community, especially on a cycling forum. I'm not sure quite what you expect from a cycling forum? Maybe you could explain what you do expect from a cycling forum?


----------



## summerdays (24 Jul 2011)

Riding a BSO doesn't make someone a POB it just means they are riding a BSO and that they could be riding a better bike that is almost as cheap but that would be more reliable and pleasant to ride.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

maybe a little less elitest in its terminology. People are generally friendly and accepting of new people to the forum but I don't know of any other group that has disparaging names for those who are not in the group.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> Riding a BSO doesn't make someone a POB it just means they are riding a BSO and that they could be riding a better bike that is almost as cheap but that would be more reliable and pleasant to ride.


However most POBs ride BSOs


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

In my book somebody who rides a bike is a cyclist as opposed to a pedestrian or a driver or a porcupine or anything else. if the bike can't move eg exercise bike I would perhaps class that as bso


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> In my book somebody who rides a bike is a cyclist as opposed to a pedestrian or a driver or a porcupine or anything else. if the bike can't move eg exercise bike I would perhaps class that as bso


If that is what makes you happy.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If that is what makes you happy.



do you not agree that a cyclist is someone who rides a bike?or is it perhaps someone who rides a bike you approve of?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> do you not agree that a cyclist is someone who rides a bike?or is it perhaps someone who rides a bike you approve of?


It's more about a state of mind. Why you ride, when you ride. Is a person who takes snap shots a photographer?


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

really? yet another elitest viewpoint I ride about a hundred miles a week to get me about my work. I don't cycle much for pleasure so I suppose I am not a cyclist by your criteria best get rid of the commuter forum then


----------



## The Dwaff Family (24 Jul 2011)

Kids BSO's really are truly awful as we have had a few of them sadly  Bought DD one from Toys R Us for £100 but it was soo god damm heavy, that she would never get to enjoy cycling and was ever so wobbly because of it. Went i nthe garage after a week and is still there, we went on to then purchase a much lighter alu frame with better brakes etc from a LBS. Have since discovered Islabikes too and thank god I did!

I see too many kids on bikes they cannot manouevre/handle properly and makes me very sad that any kids bikes can be so poor.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> really? yet another elitest viewpoint I ride about a hundred miles a week to get me about my work. I don't cycle much for pleasure so I suppose I am not a cyclist by your criteria best get rid of the commuter forum then


Why do you cycle to work rather than drive or use public transport? I did state "Why you cycle" in my comment.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

The Dwaff Family said:


> Kids BSO's really are truly awful as we have had a few of them sadly  Bought DD one from Toys R Us for £100 but it was soo god damm heavy, that she would never get to enjoy cycling and was ever so wobbly because of it. Went i nthe garage after a week and is still there, we went on to then purchase a much lighter alu frame with better brakes etc from a LBS. Have since discovered Islabikes too and thank god I did!
> 
> I see too many kids on bikes they cannot manouevre/handle properly and makes me very sad that any kids bikes can be so poor.



I don't deny there are some awful bikes out there especially the very cheap ones with dual suspension but an awful lot of kids manage to throw them around and ride on them. in an ideal world all kids would have enough money to buy a decent bike and the space to be able to use them


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why do you cycle to work rather than drive or use public transport? I did state "Why you cycle" in my comment.



I cycle because I can't drive and don't like public transport


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I cycle because I can't drive and don't like public transport


Then you choose to cycle and as such are a cyclist.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Then you choose to cycle and as such are a cyclist.



which is my point nobody holds a gun to anybody's head and makes them cycle therefore if you ride a bike you're a cyclist


----------



## The Dwaff Family (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I don't deny there are some awful bikes out there especially the very cheap ones with dual suspension but an awful lot of kids manage to throw them around and ride on them. in an ideal world all kids would have enough money to buy a decent bike and the space to be able to use them



As already stated previously, this bike was not particularly cheap at £100 for a kids bike, but the weight was ridiculous, brakes could not be reached properly and the chainguard kept getting caught on the pedals, was not good for anyone to learn and to want to keep riding. I did not think there was much difference in kids bikes from wherever you bought them, but how wrong I was, I should imagine there are alot of other parents like me out there. The kids will never moan particularly but it was oh so clear that the bike was no good for any child.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

The Dwaff Family said:


> As already stated previously, this bike was not particularly cheap at £100 for a kids bike, but the weight was ridiculous, brakes could not be reached properly and the chainguard kept getting caught on the pedals, was not good for anyone to learn and to want to keep riding. I did not think there was much difference in kids bikes from wherever you bought them, but how wrong I was, I should imagine there are alot of other parents like me out there. The kids will never moan particularly but it was oh so clear that the bike was no good for any child.



I certainly wouldn't gainsay anything you say but I have seen people happily riding what are termed bso's


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> which is my point nobody holds a gun to anybody's head and makes them cycle therefore if you ride a bike you're a cyclist


Having options learning to drive, using public transport and electing to ride is a choice. This choose makes you a cyclist or a cycling commuter if you like. If you have no other option but to ride then you are still not excluded. If cycling gives you enjoyment you are a cyclist. Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB.


----------



## summerdays (24 Jul 2011)

The Dwaff Family said:


> As already stated previously, this bike was not particularly cheap at £100 for a kids bike, but the weight was ridiculous, brakes could not be reached properly and the chainguard kept getting caught on the pedals, was not good for anyone to learn and to want to keep riding. I did not think there was much difference in kids bikes from wherever you bought them, but how wrong I was, I should imagine there are alot of other parents like me out there. The kids will never moan particularly but it was oh so clear that the bike was no good for any child.



Definitely agree with you there (as the ex-owner of a Toy'r'us bike), when we got rid of it we gave it to a bike recycling scheme with the hope that they could find something to salvage off it rather than pass it on to anyone else. (Well for a start we had replaced the back wheel and a few other bits so hopefully they were at least able to use that!).


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Having options learning to drive, using public transport and electing to ride is a choice. This choose makes you a cyclist or a cycling commuter if you like. If you have no other option but to ride then you are still not excluded. If cycling gives you enjoyment you are a cyclist. Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB.



why? they chose to ride. not to walk


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> why? they chose to ride. not to walk


I suspect time and distance are the biggest factors.
Out of interest would you join a cookery forum and expect to be taken seriously by talking about Microwave Ready Meals. After all, food is food isn't it?


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I suspect time and distance are the biggest factors.
> Out of interest would you join a cookery forum and expect to be taken seriously by talking about Microwave Ready Meals. After all, food is food isn't it?



It's good enough for Delia


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> It's good enough for Delia


----------



## abo (24 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> pob that's another disparaging term used by cyclists to differentiate themselves from people who ride cheap bikes



No it isn't, I see the term POB as someone who is ignorant of the rules of cycling (perhaps willfully) and rides around on the pavement, across junctions without looking, knees sticking out and all that bad stuff and probably doesn't even consider themselves as a cyclist rather as someone who uses a bike to get from A to B and doesn't care to take the skill further than that. A cyclist would use the term POB to differentiate themselves from those people, so when someone is talking about 'bloody cyclists on the path' or whatever, they can turn around and say 'they're not a cyclist, they're just a person on a bike'.

I like cars, and I like to think I can actually drive one properly, and take an interest in *how* to drive one properly and how to maintain a car. I used to post in a forum of likeminded people and we'd use the term 'car operator' for those people in cars who only care about getting from A-B and that's it, have very little in the way of proper driving skills beyond that required to pass the driving test (and then some forgotten), driving on the phone, not looking beyond the end of their bonnet or basically doing anything other than focussing on their driving. I'm sure as cyclists you know the type better than most...

It isn't snobbery or anything else. It's a way of distancing onesself in a way that I'm sure you'd be happy to be described differently to someone on a bike riding on the path, seat wound right down, spinning in a bizarre gear while texting your mate.

In the same way as all cheap bikes are not BSO's, not all POB's ride BSO's. There is a guy lives near my lad's scout hut rides a Specialized full sus (stumpjumper? it's all black anyway). He might be an offroad god for all I know but on the road he is definately a POB.


----------



## rowan 46 (24 Jul 2011)

we will never agree that bso is an unhelpful elitest term I think if you can get on a bike and ride it its a bike others don't agree with that definition. A cheap bike may be of questionable quality but plenty of people got into cycling on the back of cheap bikes. I agree that not all mountain bikes are suitable for going down mountains but then few people buy them for that purpose most are bought for kids by cash strapped parents with the purpose of making their kid look good to cycle down the park or round to their mates. The days when kids went for miles on their bikes are pretty much gone in these days of heavy traffic and stranger danger. Other people buy bikes for their commute and a cheap bike does them fine for a couple of miles away or a sunday jaunt round the local park.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> we will never agree that bso is an unhelpful elitest term I think if you can get on a bike and ride it its a bike others don't agree with that definition. A cheap bike may be of questionable quality but plenty of people got into cycling on the back of cheap bikes. I agree that not all mountain bikes are suitable for going down mountains but then few people buy them for that purpose most are bought for kids by cash strapped parents with the purpose of making their kid look good to cycle down the park or round to their mates. The days when kids went for miles on their bikes are pretty much gone in these days of heavy traffic and stranger danger. Other people buy bikes for their commute and a cheap bike does them fine for a couple of miles away or a sunday jaunt round the local park.


Do you know that the BS standard for sale of a bike means it must be able to last for around 200 or 300 miles. A cyclist will do that in a max of 3 months. BSO's are built to satisfy thir requirement and no more. Great bikes indeed!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> No it isn't, I see the term POB as someone who is ignorant of the rules of cycling (perhaps willfully) and rides around on the pavement, across junctions without looking, knees sticking out and all that bad stuff and probably doesn't even consider themselves as a cyclist rather as someone who uses a bike to get from A to B and doesn't care to take the skill further than that. A cyclist would use the term POB to differentiate themselves from those people, so when someone is talking about 'bloody cyclists on the path' or whatever, they can turn around and say 'they're not a cyclist, they're just a person on a bike'.
> 
> I like cars, and I like to think I can actually drive one properly, and take an interest in *how* to drive one properly and how to maintain a car. I used to post in a forum of likeminded people and we'd use the term 'car operator' for those people in cars who only care about getting from A-B and that's it, have very little in the way of proper driving skills beyond that required to pass the driving test (and then some forgotten), driving on the phone, not looking beyond the end of their bonnet or basically doing anything other than focussing on their driving. I'm sure as cyclists you know the type better than most...
> 
> ...


Am I the only one who questions why some people join a cycling forum and then moan about snobbary, expensive bikes and jargon?


----------



## rowan 46 (25 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Am I the only one who questions why some people join a cycling forum and then moan about snobbary, expensive bikes and jargon?



No but you are the only one who has a problem if they don't think as you. I think a forum is to bring up ideas and discuss you seem to take it personally that people don't agree with you. Chill lots agree with you lots agree with me its called debate


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> No but you are the only one who has a problem if they don't think as you. I think a forum is to bring up ideas and discuss you seem to take it personally that people don't agree with you. Chill lots agree with you lots agree with me its called debate


Enjoy your riding and try and learn from the forum.


----------



## rowan 46 (25 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Enjoy your riding and try and learn from the forum.



you too


----------



## The Dwaff Family (25 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> we will never agree that bso is an unhelpful elitest term I think if you can get on a bike and ride it its a bike others don't agree with that definition. A cheap bike may be of questionable quality but plenty of people got into cycling on the back of cheap bikes. I agree that not all mountain bikes are suitable for going down mountains but then few people buy them for that purpose most are *bought for kids by cash strapped parents with the purpose of making their kid look good to cycle down the park or round to their mates*. *The days when kids went for miles on their bikes are pretty much gone in these days of heavy traffic and stranger danger*. Other people buy bikes for their commute and a cheap bike does them fine for a couple of miles away or a sunday jaunt round the local park.




DS2(just turned 6) Cycled 11 miles to bike club yesterday and then did 1 1/2 training. Out again today for a few miles, DS1(12) out today for 10 miles.

I have met plenty of other like minded kids and parents on our journeys too,I guess you are taking different routes, but we are out there!


----------



## rowan 46 (25 Jul 2011)

The Dwaff Family said:


> DS2(just turned 6) Cycled 11 miles to bike club yesterday and then did 1 1/2 training. Out again today for a few miles, DS1(12) out today for 10 miles.
> 
> I have met plenty of other like minded kids and parents on our journeys too,I guess you are taking different routes, but we are out there!



Sorry wasn't clear I meant on their own


----------



## The Dwaff Family (25 Jul 2011)

Ahh yes, quite important information you missed off there


----------



## abo (25 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Am I the only one who questions why some people join a cycling forum and then moan about snobbary, expensive bikes and jargon?



Yeah I was wondering the same. I like astronomy, on a forum you might see someone talking about a Mak-Cas on an Altazi mount and you'd either have to figure out what that meant or put your hand up and ask.

In fact there are a lot of parallels between a telescope forum and a bike forum, with some members having multi-thousand pound rigs and multiple telescopes for each type of observing discipline, some members with good quality entry level gear, questions about refurbishing old equipment and a general derision of supermarket-bought telescopes, for they are badly described with hugely overstated 'magnifying power', low quality optics and generally not suitable for stargazing.

Yes folks, there are Telescope Shaped Objects...

There are probably equivalent Camera Shaped Objects, Lathe Shaped Objects, Kite Shaped Objects etc. too if you looked in the right forums


----------



## gaz (25 Jul 2011)

I've always thought that bso was used to describe a bicycle that is so cheap that the quality of it is very poor an the bike its self is dangerous. I don't see a problem with callig them bso's.
I think they play an important part in cycling, so many people use then because they are cheap and they just run them into the ground until they break. 

If people come onto a cycling fourn and ask 'what bike should I get?' you can't expect people that are passionate about cycling to suggest a bike which is potentially dangerous. You can get a good bicycle for around £200. Buy second hand and you will get a good bike for £100.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Jul 2011)

On the kids bike thing - I find Decathlon's range pretty good, if you can't stretch to Isla Bike's price range. Both my son and daughter have Decathlon bikes - the bits stay adjusted, the wheels stay true (thus far) and you can pick them up in good nick 2nd hand for between £40 and £50.

They do a nice line in city bikes for youngsters too, although I couldn't convince my daughter that having a rack on the bike was "cool"


----------



## abo (25 Jul 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> On the kids bike thing - I find Decathlon's range pretty good, if you can't stretch to Isla Bike's price range. Both my son and daughter have Decathlon bikes - the bits stay adjusted, the wheels stay true (thus far) and you can pick them up in good nick 2nd hand for between £40 and £50.
> 
> They do a nice line in city bikes for youngsters too, although I couldn't convince my daughter that having a rack on the bike was "cool"



I like the look of some of the Decathlon bikes and I'll definately be looking at them when my daughter is looking to move up to a 'proper' bike in a couple of years. Though their full sus kids bike looks a bit 'ahem' and I've noticed some weasel words in their descriptions e.g. 'Easy to use and safe twist grip gears (no need to let go of the handlebars to change gears)'


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> I've always thought that bso was used to describe a bicycle that is so cheap that the quality of it is very poor an the bike its self is dangerous. I don't see a problem with callig them bso's.
> I think they play an important part in cycling, so many people use then because they are cheap and they just run them into the ground until they break.
> 
> If people come onto a cycling fourn and ask 'what bike should I get?' you can't expect people that are passionate about cycling to suggest a bike which is potentially dangerous. You can get a good bicycle for around £200. Buy second hand and you will get a good bike for £100.



Thank you Gaz - Thought I was going crazier than I already am


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Yeah I was wondering the same. I like astronomy, on a forum you might see someone talking about a Mak-Cas on an Altazi mount and you'd either have to figure out what that meant or put your hand up and ask.
> 
> In fact there are a lot of parallels between a telescope forum and a bike forum, with some members having multi-thousand pound rigs and multiple telescopes for each type of observing discipline, some members with good quality entry level gear, questions about refurbishing old equipment and a general derision of supermarket-bought telescopes, for they are badly described with hugely overstated 'magnifying power', low quality optics and generally not suitable for stargazing.
> 
> ...


 Cheers - Thought I was in a parallel universe again


----------



## rowan 46 (25 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Yeah I was wondering the same. I like astronomy, on a forum you might see someone talking about a Mak-Cas on an Altazi mount and you'd either have to figure out what that meant or put your hand up and ask.
> 
> In fact there are a lot of parallels between a telescope forum and a bike forum, with some members having multi-thousand pound rigs and multiple telescopes for each type of observing discipline, some members with good quality entry level gear, questions about refurbishing old equipment and a general derision of supermarket-bought telescopes, for they are badly described with hugely overstated 'magnifying power', low quality optics and generally not suitable for stargazing.
> 
> ...



I also like astronomy and there are not tso's there are toyshop scopes called that because they are sold in toyshops and not suitable for astronomy. If somebody went onto an astronomy forum with one of them they would be told what they could be used for and the reasons why they are not suitable for astronomy. The difference is they are still recognised as telescopes just not good ones. As for abbreviations I have no problems with them I accept on a forum people need to use shorthand. And as for derision if somebody comes on the forum after buying a toyshop scope advice is given on how to make the best of it rather than derision. they want people to continue astronomy. This forum is the friendliest forum on cycles I have come across full of caring people who want to share the joys of cycling. I came to this forum after being on a couple of others where when I mentioned I rode a viking was sneered at,. This place doesn't have the same elitest attitude but it does have the same language bso is the bike not the rider on other cycle forums they make little distinction. Somebody who rides a bso is as much a cyclist as somebody who rides a posh road bike, they may not be as serious ie the same financial commitment but when they get on the road to go to work they get the same problems as every other rider. By the way I have no problem with anyone sneering at my bike I have the problem with why anybody would want to.


----------



## gaz (25 Jul 2011)

So can we call them asb? Argos shaped bike?


----------



## abo (25 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I also like astronomy and there are not tso's there are toyshop scopes called that because they are sold in toyshops and not suitable for astronomy. If somebody went onto an astronomy forum with one of them they would be told what they could be used for and the reasons why they are not suitable for astronomy. The difference is they are still recognised as telescopes just not good ones.



Oh I dunno, there is some crap out there being punted as 'suitable for the budding astronomer' etc. so not fit for purpose 

There are some quite nice little scopes in toyshops which I'd be happy to give to the kids though e.g. Toys R Us but I wish they wouldn't chuck in silly 4mm eyepieces just to get the magnification numbers up... I reckon that one in the link would make a nice little wide-field telescope though.

I've got a Celestron NexStar 110 SLT, hardly a lightbucket but it's good fun. Or was, until the light pollution around here got so bad


----------



## HLaB (25 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> So can we call them asb? Argos shaped bike?




No, it be far more appropriate if we called them a C/SOwW&aS, a Catalogue/Supermarket Object with Wheels & a Saddle  If you can remember that mouthfull good on you, I think I'll just use BSO


----------



## rowan 46 (25 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> So can we call them asb? Argos shaped bike?



I guess you can call them what you like when I opened the thread it was to point out that it was elitist and was used as much to insult the rider as to insult the bike. And secondly that it was an inaccurate term a bso is a bike as opposed to well anything else. The sticky says bso is a bike shaped object there is no indication of what that entails and I thought it would be useful to to nail it down. There seems to be some degree of personal preference on what a bso is


----------



## benb (26 Jul 2011)

I haven't seen anyone criticising a person for buying a BSO, only criticising the BSO manufacturers and retailers. Most people won't know that they are crap, and that you can get a decent cheap bike that is not a BSO. And if someone came on this forum saying they had bought one, I very much doubt that people would give them a lot of stick about it, but politely point out that they bought a crap product.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> I haven't seen anyone criticising a person for buying a BSO, only criticising the BSO manufacturers and retailers. Most people won't know that they are crap, and that you can get a decent cheap bike that is not a BSO. And if someone came on this forum saying they had bought one, I very much doubt that people would give them a lot of stick about it, but politely point out that they bought a crap product.



Well said. I started out on a BSO and most people were will willing to talk to me and help me in my quest to upgrade it


----------



## The Dwaff Family (26 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I guess you can call them what you like when I opened the thread it was to point out that it was elitist and *was used as much to insult the rider as to insult the bike*. And secondly that it was an inaccurate term a bso is a bike as opposed to well anything else. The sticky says bso is a bike shaped object there is no indication of what that entails and I thought it would be useful to to nail it down. There seems to be some degree of personal preference on what a bso is




I have not seen anyone on here insulting the rider, I think it has been made pretty clear from the beginning of this thread aswell exactly what people thought of BSO's, but if that's how you feel then that's up to you,


----------



## lukesdad (26 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> I haven't seen anyone criticising a person for buying a BSO, only criticising the BSO manufacturers and retailers. Most people won't know that they are crap, and that you can get a decent cheap bike that is not a BSO. And if someone came on this forum saying they had bought one, I very much doubt that people would give them a lot of stick about it, but politely point out that they bought a crap product.




You obviously dont read much of the forums then, or are selective. There are many instances of BSO rider being used as an elitest comment whether intentionaly or not.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> You obviously dont read much of the forums then, or are selective. There are many instances of BSO rider being used as an elitest comment whether intentionaly or not.



I don't read or post on any other cycling forums so I've not experienced it. I post on here enough, if I was posting elsewhere I wouldn't have time to get any work done, or actually *ride* my bike lol


----------



## NeilEB (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> So can we call them asb? Argos shaped bike?




Go one further: 

ASBO - Argos Shaped Bike Object....


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If cycling gives you enjoyment you are a cyclist. Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB.



Cyclist = one who cycles.
Why do you even feel the need to redefine this definition.
Smacks of gratuitous arrogant elitist snobbery to me.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Cyclist = one who cycles.
> Why do you even feel the need to redefine this definition.
> Smacks of gratuitous arrogant elitist snobbery to me.



Would you differentiate between someone who runs for a bus and an Olympic athlete? After all they both run don't they?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you differentiate between someone who runs for a bus and an Olympic athlete? After all they both run don't they?



Runner = one who runs.
At the moment of running he or she who runs is a runner.
If you want to load the label with provisos ;
Runner = one who runs at the olympics
then that is your own definition and not the correct one.
I would question the motivation for such redefinitons.

I would concede that the label implies a tendency to the action.
Mr x who habitually cycles to the pub has a habitual tendency to cycle and is therefore a cyclist.
The labelling does infer a habitual repetition of the action.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Cyclist = one who cycles.
> Why do you even feel the need to redefine this definition.
> Smacks of gratuitous arrogant elitist snobbery to me.



There is only you going on about 'elitist snobbery'


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> There is only you going on about 'elitist snobbery'



I didn't want to be the one to point that out as I might have been accused of being an elitist forum critiquer or some such rubbish. As so puzzled why Apollo has such a large chip on the shoulder?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Runner = one who runs.
> At the moment of running he or she who runs is a runner.
> If you want to load the label with provisos ;
> Runner = one who runs at the olympics
> ...



Why do you have such a large chip on your shoulders?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why do you have such a large chip on your shoulders?


You cant avoid the issue that easily.
Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously arrogant elitist and snobby.
I say Mr X who habitually cycles to the pub is a cyclist .
You say he isnt.
It is you that feels the need to deride and exclude people from the hobby of cycling - not me.
Why do you feel the need to behave in such an unpleasant manner.
Thats all that in querying.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Then you choose to cycle and as such are a cyclist.



What gives you the right to judge whether anyone is a cyclist or not.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> There is only you going on about 'elitist snobbery'


Wrong.
The issue of snobbery is at the heart of this whole topic.
The 2nd post in this topic defined bso as ;
Bicycle shaped objects. - A term used by bike snobs to define "Cheap" bikes from Argos ect. "
The debate re bso/snobbery has continued thereafter.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I say Mr X who habitually cycles to the pub is a cyclist .
> You say he isnt.
> It is you that feels the need to deride and exclude people from the hobby of cycling - not me.



Sounds more like a method of transport to the pub to me, rather than a hobby. There is no derision. Mr X himself might not even consider himself to be a cyclist.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You cant avoid the issue that easily.
> Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously arrogant elitist and snobby.
> I say Mr X who habitually cycles to the pub is a cyclist .
> You say he isnt.
> ...



I have said before that being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind. You don't have to have an expensive machine or top end clothes. I have a £200 Viking road bike and more of my cycling gear cost less then £30 / item. I call myself a cyclist because it plays a very large part in my life. I think about it, read about it and do it a hell of a lot. 

In my youth I was a runner. I trained 6 days a week. I lived and breathed it. I was not that good - county standard only. 

I, like so many others on here, have pointed out that there is, in the main, no snobbery involved. You are the only person person I can find using that term in fact. 
_*
As for behaving in an unpleasant manner I make this an open question? Am I?*_


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> What gives you the right to judge whether anyone is a cyclist or not.



I spend three years volunteering with a cycling group. In that time I came into contact with people from all walks of life and leaves of cycling experience. Those who turned up for the weekly sessions did not class themselves as cyclists, neither did those who just did it for the social activity. A better question might be what differentiates a cyclist from a POB. I have already addressed that question.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Wrong.
> The issue of snobbery is at the heart of this whole topic.
> The 2nd post in this topic defined bso as ;
> Bicycle shaped objects. - A term used by bike snobs to define "Cheap" bikes from Argos ect. "
> The debate re bso/snobbery has continued thereafter.



Only YOU are mentioning snobbery. You interoperate the definition of BSO to be inherently snobbish. You are in a very small minority. Maybe you feel we are discriminating against you?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Sounds more like a method of transport to the pub to me, rather than a hobby. There is no derision. Mr X himself might not even consider himself to be a cyclist.



As I said previously I know many people who use bikes but would never class themselves as cyclists in the same way a person who runs for a bus would not class themselves as a runner.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Sounds more like a method of transport to the pub to me, rather than a hobby. There is no derision. Mr X himself might not even consider himself to be a cyclist.



So are you only a cyclist if you are doing it as a hobby.
I cycle 200 miles a week but only for business purposes.
Never for pleasure - sometimes i enjoy it sometimes i dont.
Am i not a cyclist?
Should i leave the forum ?
Am i in the wrong place ?
Coat please ?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have said before that being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind.



So are you only a cyclist if you have a state of mind that confirms to Angelfishsolos criteria.
What do you know about anybodys state of mind ???
I cycle 200 miles a week but only for transport purposes.
Never for pleasure - sometimes i enjoy it sometimes i dont.
Am i not a cyclist?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So are you only a cyclist if you are doing it as a hobby.
> I cycle 200 miles a week but only for business purposes.
> Never for pleasure - sometimes i enjoy it sometimes i dont.
> Am i not a cyclist?
> ...



That is for you to decide. Has anyone on here called you a POB? Has anyone one here called your bike a BSO?

You are clearly upset about something but I have no idea why?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So are you only a cyclist if you have a state of mind that confirms to Angelfishsolos criteria.
> What do you know about anybodys state of mind ???
> I cycle 200 miles a week but only for transport purposes.
> Never for pleasure - sometimes i enjoy it sometimes i dont.
> Am i not a cyclist?



That is not my criteria but one I read on here and have heard many times before.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So are you only a cyclist if you are doing it as a hobby.
> I cycle 200 miles a week but only for business purposes.
> Never for pleasure - sometimes i enjoy it sometimes i dont.
> Am i not a cyclist?
> ...





apollo179 said:


> deride and exclude people from the hobby of cycling - not me.



So, you use the term 'hobby' in your post and then lambast me for using it in my reply to that post?

You sir, are a cock and I've no wish to continue further 'discussion'


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> So, you use the term 'hobby' in your post and then lambast me for using it in my reply to that post?
> 
> You sir, are a :troll: and I've no wish to continue further 'discussion'



FTFY 

I thought apollo was a girl for some reason.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> So, you use the term 'hobby' in your post and then lambast me for using it in my reply to that post?
> 
> You sir, are a cock and I've no wish to continue further 'discussion'



You can cycle as a hobby. You can also cycle but not as a hobby - transport , work , professionaly.
You are still a cyclist. You do not have to do it as a hobby to be a cyclist.
You sir are a moron.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> FTFY
> 
> I thought apollo was a girl for some reason.



Yeah, I think I fed that troll for far too long...


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

Can you only be a motorist if your state of mind is a certain way? Or are you a motorist if you drive a motorised vehicle?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That is not my criteria but one I read on here and have heard many times before.



Previous page you said "being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind."
So are you only a cyclist if you have a state of mind that confirms to Angelfishsolos criteria.
What do you know about anybodys state of mind ???
I cycle 200 miles a week but only for transport purposes.
Never for pleasure - sometimes i enjoy it sometimes i dont.
Am i not a cyclist?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Can you only be a motorist if your state of mind is a certain way? Or are you a motorist if you drive a motorised vehicle?



I have asked the question " When does a person who uses a car become a driver?" before on this forum and not had an answer.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> FTFY
> 
> I thought apollo was a girl for some reason.



Ftfy ? presumably something insulting and offensive .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Previous page you said "being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind."
> So are you only a cyclist if you have a state of mind that confirms to Angelfishsolos criteria.
> What do you know about anybodys state of mind ???
> I cycle 200 miles a week but only for transport purposes.
> ...



Repeating a post does not make it any more sensible.


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have asked the question " When does a person who uses a car become a driver?" before on this forum and not had an answer.


You are a driver when you driver a car. Just like you are a cyclist when you have a bicycle between your legs.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Yeah, I think I fed that troll for far too long...



You are doing very well for a person with an IQ of between 51 and 70 I must say. Or maybe she/he means you are a carrot (as that is what Moron means in Welsh)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ftfy ? presumably something insulting and offensive .



Another incorrect presumption - *F*ixed *T*hat *F*or *Y*ou


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> You are a driver when you driver a car. Just like you are a cyclist when you have a bicycle between your legs.



Until the cyclist is seen stealing, mugging somebody or committing other unsavoury acts - Then they are not cyclists at all and there is a rush to distance ourselves from them. Such as the case of the "cyclist" who killed the car driver who opened the door on him.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> You are a driver when you driver a car. Just like you are a cyclist when you have a bicycle between your legs.



Yes i like that definition.
"you are a cyclist when you have a bicycle between your legs"
Lets have a definition that errs on the generous side - not an exclusive elitist one.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have asked the question " When does a person who uses a car become a driver?" before on this forum and not had an answer.



Indeed. A driving forum I used to post in ages ago used to use the term 'car operator' to define those people who use a car to get from A to B yet have no knowledge of how they work or how to maintain them, or have few driving skills beyond those required to pass the test (or even less due to losing those skills deliberately or otherwise).

Basically to distinguish a person who might use their car/bike/lawnmower/kite/whatever as a means to an end, from those who are enthusiasts.

If you know who sees this as snobbery then I really don't care any more.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> You are a driver when you driver a car. Just like you are a cyclist when you have a bicycle between your legs.



Not on driving forums.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Another incorrect presumption - *F*ixed *T*hat *F*or *Y*ou



I admit my incorrect presumption and apologise. Acronyms can confuse if you arnt familiar.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Indeed. A driving forum I used to post in ages ago used to use the term 'car operator' to define those people who use a car to get from A to B yet have no knowledge of how they work or how to maintain them, or have few driving skills beyond those required to pass the test (or even less due to losing those skills deliberately or otherwise).
> 
> Basically to distinguish a person who might use their car/bike/lawnmower/kite/whatever as a means to an end, from those who are enthusiasts.
> 
> If you know who sees this as snobbery then I really don't care any more.



I agree mate. I can make myself dinner from scratch but I am not a chef. However the definition of a chef is someone who prepares a meal from scratch.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I admit my incorrect presumption and apologise. Acronyms can confuse if you arnt familiar.



That is why people ask questions.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Repeating a post does not make it any more sensible.



If as you said "being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind."
How can you judge if anyone is a cyclist - what do you know about anybodys state of mind ???
What do you know about Mr X who habitually cycles down the pub but you say isnt a cyclist.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If as you said "being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind."
> How can you judge if anyone is a cyclist - what do you know about anybodys state of mind ???
> What do you know about Mr X who habitually cycles down the pub but you say isnt a cyclist.



I talk to people. That is often a good way to discover things about them.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Or maybe she/he means you are a carrot (as that is what Moron means in Welsh)



Hah, I heard that mentioned in an episode of QI!


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Indeed. A driving forum I used to post in ages ago used to use the term 'car operator' to define those people who use a car to get from A to B yet have no knowledge of how they work or how to maintain them, or have few driving skills beyond those required to pass the test (or even less due to losing those skills deliberately or otherwise).
> 
> Basically to distinguish a person who might use their car/bike/lawnmower/kite/whatever as a means to an end, from those who are enthusiasts.
> 
> If you know who sees this as snobbery then I really don't care any more.



If you cant see that that is snobbery then theres clearly something seriously wrong with you.
Let me be as clear as i can be so hopefully you will understand.
Differentiating car operator from (presumably) driver as you have described is snobbery.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you cant see that that is snobbery then theres clearly something seriously wrong with you.
> Let me be as clear as i can be so hopefully you will understand.
> Differentiating car operator from (presumably) driver as you have described is snobbery.



Me thinks the person doth complain to much.


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I admit my incorrect presumption and apologise. Acronyms can confuse if you arnt familiar.



Agreed, ever heard the term bso ?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I talk to people. That is often a good way to discover things about them.



"Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB." (angelfishsolo)
Do you stand by this before talking to the individual ?


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB." (angelfishsolo)
> Do you stand by this before talking to the individual ?




Pisshead on bike ?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Agreed, ever heard the term bso ?



We should start a thread about that.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Pisshead on bike ?




Pisshead cyclist on bike ?


----------



## lukesdad (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Pisshead on bike ?




You called ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB." (angelfishsolo)
> Do you stand by this before talking to the individual ?



The statement is based on the people I know who cycle back and for to the pub only. Yes I stand by that statement. Does that shock or surprise you?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Pisshead on bike ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> You called ?



From what I've heard about you Tachyon is a better name


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The statement is based on the people I know who cycle back and for to the pub only. Yes I stand by that statement. Does that shock or surprise you?


Yes it does surprise me.
You state "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB." 
You also state "being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind." and that you have to speak to an individual to decide on his state of mind.
You havnt spoken to everyone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub so how can you say carte blanche that "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB."You cant know there state of mind.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Jul 2011)

Cyclist = someone who cycles, whether that be my 4 year old cycling thru the park on his heap his nan bought him, or Cadel Evans cycling in the TDF.

POB = See above.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes it does surprise me.
> You state "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB."
> You also state "being a cyclist is more than just riding a bike. It is a state of mind." and that you have to speak to an individual to decide on his state of mind.
> You havnt spoken to everyone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub so how can you say carte blanche that "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub is a POB."You cant know there state of mind.



What are you looking for? Validation that you are a cyclist? A sea change from the forum? Absolution?


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Cyclist = someone who cycles, whether that be my 4 year old cycling thru the park on his heap his nan bought him, or Cadel Evans cycling in the TDF.
> 
> POB = See above.




Agreed, can I add though please

BSO = S*** bike

Ta


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Agreed, can I add though please
> 
> BSO = S*** bike
> 
> Ta



You elitist snob!


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What are you looking for? Validation that you are a cyclist? A sea change from the forum? Absolution?


Please dont try and evade the point.
Please answer the question above.


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Until the cyclist is seen stealing, mugging somebody or committing other unsavoury acts - Then they are not cyclists at all and there is a rush to distance ourselves from them. Such as the case of the "cyclist" who killed the car driver who opened the door on him.


The media is stating what the person is at that moment of time. Do people really label all cyclists as the kind that will get into a punch up because of the way that article is titled? How do you suggest that people on bicycles are reffered to?

The definition of cyclist in the dictionary 'a person who rides or travels by bicycle'


----------



## lukesdad (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Agreed, can I add though please
> 
> BSO = S*** bike
> 
> Ta



No


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Agreed, can I add though please
> 
> BSO = S*** bike
> 
> Ta


This is 100% true BSO = sxxx bike.
Not in dispute.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> The media is stating what the person is at that moment of time. Do people really label all cyclists as the kind that will get into a punch up because of the way that article is titled? How do you suggest that people on bicycles are reffered to?
> 
> The definition of cyclist in the dictionary 'a person who rides or travels by bicycle'



The person on the article would have been better referred to as a thug or mentally ill person.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Please dont try and evade the point.
> Please answer the question above.



I can extrapolate based upon person experience and the experiences of others that my statement is true. If / when I am proven wrong I will happily admit it.


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

People who don't cycle will label anyone that is on a bicycle as a cyclist. As that is what they are, they won't question them to find out their state of mind and then make a conclusion. Being a cyclist is not about state of mind, it's all to do with the bicycle between the legs or lack of.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> People who don't cycle will label anyone that is on a bicycle as a cyclist. As that is what they are, they won't question them to find out their state of mind and then make a conclusion. Being a cyclist is not about state of mind, it's all to do with the bicycle between the legs or lack of.



I disagree with you. If I have trainers on and run for a bus I am not a runner am I. I am someone engaged in the act of running for that moment. To me a POB is like the person who runs for the bus. A cyclist someone who runs on a regular basis with end goals and ambitions.


----------



## benb (26 Jul 2011)

I there are 2 definitions. That's not uncommon with words.

Cyclist, n.
1) A person on a bicycle, no matter how often they ride it
2) Someone who habitually cycles, be that professionally, as a hobby, or for regular transportation.

The thing is, hardly anyone in group 1 would describe themselves as a cyclist, but most people in group 2 would.

So maybe we can differentiate between the definitions by saying that someone who only cycles occasionally to the pub is only a cyclist during that journey. Someone who cycles a lot and loves it is always a cyclist.

Anyway, will you kids stop bickering! 
Apollo, you do seem unnecessarily touchy about this.


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I disagree with you. If I have trainers on and run for a bus I am not a runner am I. I am someone engaged in the act of running for that moment. To me a POB is like the person who runs for the bus. A cyclist someone who runs on a regular basis with end goals and ambitions.


Wearing trainers and then running for a bus is different than actively lifting your leg over a bike and pedalling down the road to the pub.
Is someone that only drives to the supermarket not a motorist?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I can extrapolate based upon person experience and the experiences of others that my statement is true. If / when I am proven wrong I will happily admit it.



The issue of judging the state of mind of "Someone who only uses the bike to get to and from the pub" is further complicated by the fact that obviously his state of mind will be different before and after going to the pub.
Does your reseach take this into account?


----------



## Mad at urage (26 Jul 2011)

Ahhh, Benb,   differentiate, yes  . As in:

differentiate
1 [+ obj] : to make (someone or something) different in some way
"The only thing that differentiates the twins is the color of their eyes."
2 : to see or state the difference or differences between two or more things


As opposed to: 
snobbery 
disapproving : the behavior or attitude of people who think they are better than other people : the behavior or attitude of snobs 

snobs
disapproving : someone who tends to criticize, reject, or ignore people who come from a lower social class, have less education, etc. 

elitist 
disapproving: giving special treatment and advantages to wealthy and powerful people 

Some people like to make out that these are all the same thing though ... I'm not sure why!


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> I there are 2 definitions. That's not uncommon with words.
> 
> Cyclist, n.
> 1) A person on a bicycle, no matter how often they ride it
> ...



Unnecessarily ?
People are happy to slag of human rights lawyers until they get there doors kicked in by storm troopers at 3 in the morning and shipped of to guantanamo.
Good definition btw.


----------



## benb (26 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Unnecessarily ?
> People are happy to slag of human rights lawyers until they get there doors kicked in by storm troopers at 3 in the morning and shipped of to guantanamo.
> Good definition btw.



WTF has human rights lawyers and Guantanamo got to do with definitions of cyclists?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> i was reading this earlier and i decided to register to say my 2 cents
> 
> i have a bike which some of you may label as a "bso" but i am very happy with it. it got me into cycling and now i will most probably upgrade to a better bike. bsos arent all that bad.



Welcome aboard.
Great first post btw.


----------



## benb (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> i was reading this earlier and i decided to register to say my 2 cents
> 
> i have a bike which some of you may label as a "bso" but i am very happy with it. it got me into cycling and now i will most probably upgrade to a better bike. bsos arent all that bad.



Good for you, that's fantastic.

For every person like you, there are 10 BSOs rusting in a shed, the owners having given up on cycling due to their heavy, uncomfortable bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> WTF has human rights lawyers and Guantanamo got to do with definitions of cyclists?


Apollo has pretty much invoked Goodwins Law. This is the time to walk away from this thread.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> i was reading this earlier and i decided to register to say my 2 cents
> 
> i have a bike which some of you may label as a "bso" but i am very happy with it. it got me into cycling and now i will most probably upgrade to a better bike. bsos arent all that bad.


I started out on a BSO as well.


----------



## benb (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> @benb yes i know alot of people who have brought bikes and hardly ever rode them because they are uncomfortable. these people think they are buying a great bike. unlike me who knew the bike i was buying wasnt that good and knew cycling would be hard on it. i decided that if i liked it only a little bit i would carry on and buy a new bike.



They you get a big thumbs up.

What I think a lot of people don't realise is that you can get a decent cheap bike that is not a BSO - that is, it is perfectly servicable and will last for a good few years. And by cheap, I mean sub £200. Probably not as cheap as a crap BSO, but not very expensive. For riders starting out, I would recommend a decent second hand bike, where you can get a good bike for £150.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> @benb yes i know alot of people who have brought bikes and hardly ever rode them because they are uncomfortable. these people think they are buying a great bike. unlike me who knew the bike i was buying wasnt that good and knew cycling would be hard on it. i decided that if i liked it only a little bit i would carry on and buy a new bike.


That was my rationale when getting my Vikin road bike.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apollo has pretty much invoked Goodwins Law. This is the time to walk away from this thread.



Ha Ha.
I was just trying to convey the message that for the furtherance of a decent society we all have a responsibility to speak up in the furtherance of good.
Wasnt it edmoind burke that said all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. 
Anyway it seems im in a minority so im taking your advice and beating a hasty retreat.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Wearing trainers and then running for a bus is different than actively lifting your leg over a bike and pedalling down the road to the pub.
> Is someone that only drives to the supermarket not a motorist?


Why. I actively choose to move my legs at a speed an gait inconcistant with walking. 
Many motoring forums will answer your question as no they are not drivers. I have no opinion on that subject.


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> plus alot of people think the double suspension is more comfortable.



Only POB's would thing like that, a cyclist wouldn't


----------



## NeilEB (26 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> For riders starting out, I would recommend a decent second hand bike, where you can get a good bike for £150.




Except you would need to know what you are looking for, in terms of function and erm....state of repair.

You could buy a second hand bike for £100, and by the time you've had all the bits replaced that may need it, end up spending more then if you bought an entry level bike for £200 new.

Anyway I digress....


----------



## gaz (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why. I actively choose to move my legs at a speed an gait inconcistant with walking.
> Many motoring forums will answer your question as no they are not drivers. I have no opinion on that subject.


And anything like a motoring forum is obviously going to have a few people that think people who don't know anything about how an engine works is not a driver. Which isn't the case, they just want to segregate them selves from normal users.
Just like up are trying to do with people that cycle as a means of transport from a to pub.


----------



## abo (26 Jul 2011)

NeilEB said:


> Except you would need to know what you are looking for, in terms of function and erm....state of repair.
> 
> You could buy a second hand bike for £100, and by the time you've had all the bits replaced that may need it, end up spending more then if you bought an entry level bike for £200 new.
> 
> Anyway I digress....



You know that's a good point. How many people have bought shitters as a first car and been ripped off because they don't know what they're looking for. If someone asked me what to do when buying a first car I'd tell them 'take someone with you who knows about cars'. I guess the same could be said of buying a bike?


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The statement is based on the people I know who cycle back and for to the pub only. Yes I stand by that statement. Does that shock or surprise you?




Damn, I am going to stop cycling to and from the pub and use my car instead. I really don't want to be labelled a POB


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

As I said Goodwins Law has been invoked. Time to say bye to the thread.


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> @abo thats why if i were to buy a 2nd hand bike, id go to a shop which sells them




Just avoid Asda, Tesco's and Toy's R Us and you should be OK


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

Mattyboy2899 said:


> @Angelfishsolo whats goodwins law?


[size="+3"]Goodwin's Law of Usenet [/size]

[size="+1"]Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet discussions gravitate downhill. 

He postulated that as the length of a discussion thread grows, the probability approaches one (1) that one participant will introduce the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi". The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates. [/size]


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Jul 2011)

I still think that if you want to get rid of its elitest connotations you should nail down the definition in the sticky as it seems I am not the only one to have noticed it being used in that way. To precis the general agreement on what a bso is it seems to be agreed that a bso is a bike shaped object ie not fit for purpose, unable to be maintained in a roadworthy condition or not kept in a roadworthy condition. this gets rid of question of price etc in other words if it can be ridden and maintained safely its a bike. any other attribute seems to be a value judgement


----------



## zexel (26 Jul 2011)

39 pages! 

Does it really matter...really? (rhetorical)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

zexel said:


> 39 pages!
> 
> Does it really matter...really? (rhetorical)



Should one answer a rhetorical question?


----------



## 4F (26 Jul 2011)

of course it matters, this is the internet.....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jul 2011)

lynxman2 said:


> Can we get it to 50?


What an Elitist aim


----------



## apollo179 (26 Jul 2011)

Technically it is debateable whether Goodwin's Law of Usenet was actually triggerred.


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> Good for you, that's fantastic.
> 
> For every person like you, there are 10 BSOs rusting in a shed, the owners having given up on cycling due to their heavy, uncomfortable bike.



I would be very surprised if the reasons that people gave for not cycling was a heavy uncomfortable bike. My guess is that it is more to do with traffic, time, comfort and perceived safety than anything else at least that's what most of my friends say that and the fact they drive which is the most common reason given


----------



## NeilEB (27 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I would be very surprised if the reasons that people gave for not cycling was a heavy uncomfortable bike. My guess is that it is more to do with traffic, time, comfort and perceived safety than anything else at least that's what most of my friends say that and the fact they drive which is the most common reason given




Actually, about 8 years ago I bought a BSO online (think it was £100).

Hated it so much that I took it out a few times and then it rusted in a shed. Think it got chucked when my parents moved house.

The steering was awful, saddle kept coming loose, brakes were almost non-existant.

Sure, some of it would have been my fault during construction, but the point is, it didn't behave as it should have done, so it put me off cycling for a while


----------



## lukesdad (27 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I would be very surprised if the reasons that people gave for not cycling was a heavy uncomfortable bike. My guess is that it is more to do with traffic, time, comfort and perceived safety than anything else at least that's what most of my friends say that and the fact they drive which is the most common reason given




I think most of your friends tell porkies ! What they really mean is they re just plain lazy.


----------



## lukesdad (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What an Elitist aim




I thought you d hopped it !


----------



## 4F (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Technically it is debateable whether Goodwin's Law of Usenet was actually triggerred.



Nazi !

There, is that OK now ?


----------



## Sir Humphrey Appleby (27 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> Nazi !
> 
> There, is that OK now ?



Not for Goodwin's Law of *Usenet*


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Jul 2011)

NeilEB said:


> Actually, about 8 years ago I bought a BSO online (think it was £100).
> 
> Hated it so much that I took it out a few times and then it rusted in a shed. Think it got chucked when my parents moved house.
> 
> ...



It may be true for you but for most people that doesn't appear to be the case, Here is a link to a piece summarizing surveys on why people don't cycle. I have only scanned it and can only see one survey where the question about equipment was asked but even on this survey it came well down the field as an answer. http://can.org.nz/system/files/Why dont people walk and cycle.pdf


----------



## NeilEB (27 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> It may be true for you but for most people that doesn't appear to be the case, Here is a link to a piece summarizing surveys on why people don't cycle. I have only scanned it and can only see one survey where the question about equipment was asked but even on this survey it came well down the field as an answer. http://can.org.nz/sy...and%20cycle.pdf




But glancing at that report, the questions seemed to be targetted at the general population, looking at their daily commute.

My example was a real example of someone who wanted to cycle, bought a bike and then gave up.

If a survey was done on people who had bought a bike in the last year, and no longer use it, I wonder what the response would be then?


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Jul 2011)

NeilEB said:


> But glancing at that report, the questions seemed to be targetted at the general population, looking at their daily commute.
> 
> My example was a real example of someone who wanted to cycle, bought a bike and then gave up.
> 
> If a survey was done on people who had bought a bike in the last year, and no longer use it, I wonder what the response would be then?



there are a couple of surveys done by ex cyclists


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> there are a couple of surveys done by ex cyclists



The charity I was involved in targeted those who did not exercise or had not for a long time. Many of them had said they had ridden BSO's but hated it. Once they found out what riding am inexpensive bike Trek Hybrid, Kona Fire Mountain, even a Dahon folding bike they loved it. I saw the same thing over a three year period across three area of my County. The reported results from all other sections of the group were the same.


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The charity I was involved in targeted those who did not exercise or had not for a long time. Many of them had said they had ridden BSO's but hated it. Once they found out what riding am inexpensive bike Trek Hybrid, Kona Fire Mountain, even a Dahon folding bike they loved it. I saw the same thing over a three year period across three area of my County. The reported results from all other sections of the group were the same.



I don't dispute your experience I would however like to see your figures my experience is that weather and convenience is cited by my friends, they just don't believe that cycling is more convenient in a city than motoring.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I don't dispute your experience I would however like to see your figures my experience is that weather and convenience is cited by my friends, they just don't believe that cycling is more convenient in a city than motoring.



The figures are not yet published and I believe the project has a few months left to live.


----------



## wiggydiggy (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ha Ha.
> I was just trying to convey the message that for the furtherance of a decent society we all have a responsibility to speak up in the furtherance of good.
> Wasnt it edmoind burke that said all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
> Anyway it seems im in a minority so im taking your advice and beating a hasty retreat.


[EDIT]

Actually sorry that was uncalled for of me, carry on....


----------



## apollo179 (27 Jul 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> [EDIT]
> 
> Actually sorry that was uncalled for of me, carry on....


I missed that what did you say ?


----------



## wiggydiggy (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I missed that what did you say ?



I was being rude, carry on


----------



## apollo179 (27 Jul 2011)

Neil puts forward a convincing arguement against bsos.
If we accept the worthlessness of bsos then assuming a minimum price associated with the production , marketing etc etc of a non bso spec product - what price is the cheapest non bso adult bike available.
I have previously on another topic suggested the Muddyfox Hornet 26 inch Mountain Bike for £79.99 only to have it universally slated as a cheap and nasty bso.



So what price a non bso adult bike.
In effect, in the combined wisdom of this forums glitterati what is the minimum you need to spend to buy acceptable hardware , ignoring for the sake of argument buying 2nd hand.


----------



## 4F (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Neil puts forward a convincing arguement against bsos.
> If we accept the worthlessness of bsos then assuming a minimum price associated with the production , marketing etc etc of a non bso spec product - what price is the cheapest non bso adult bike available.
> I have previously on another topic suggested the Muddyfox Hornet 26 inch Mountain Bike for £79.99 only to have it universally slated as a cheap and nasty bso.
> 
> ...



For me anything from Tesco's, Asda, Toys R Us and a catalogue company is a BSO.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Neil puts forward a convincing arguement against bsos.
> If we accept the worthlessness of bsos then assuming a minimum price associated with the production , marketing etc etc of a non bso spec product - what price is the cheapest non bso adult bike available.
> I have previously on another topic suggested the Muddyfox Hornet 26 inch Mountain Bike for £79.99 only to have it universally slated as a cheap and nasty bso.
> 
> ...



I would say something like this. It is classed as a leisure MTB and states clearly it is not suited to rough terrain. It does what it says on the tin.


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> For me anything from Tesco's, Asda, Toys R Us and a catalogue company is a BSO.



Would you believe Argos sell a £1000 bike?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Would you believe Argos sell a £1000 bike?



I would believe they have them for sale. I would be surprised if they sold many any.


----------



## 4F (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Would you believe Argos sell a £1000 bike?



To quantify when I stated catalogue company I meant Littlewoods, Next etc rather than Argos. 

My first bike was from Littlewoods, less than 60 quid if I recall. Nothing but hassle from day 1


----------



## apollo179 (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would say something like this. It is classed as a leisure MTB and states clearly it is not suited to rough terrain. It does what it says on the tin.


Thanks for the suggestion.
Looks a safe bet (nice bike)
£100
So anyone with a sub £100 budget has a problem.
Newbies will probably be (understandably) disinclined to buy 2nd hand.
What do we suggest for anyone with a sub £100 budget , who is inclined to buy new , shops at tescos and is only going to use it for the occasional trip down to the library or down the pub.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thanks for the suggestion.
> Looks a safe bet (nice bike)
> £100
> So anyone with a sub £100 budget has a problem.
> ...



Sub £100 budget - Real world answer. _*Save up*_ if not prepared to go second hand. Nothing good will come of spending less than that on a "bike".

Edit I know the bike I chose was £99.99p !!!


----------



## 4F (27 Jul 2011)

To be fair to Decathalon for those on a budget the range of bikes they have are good value for money.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

4F said:


> To be fair to Decathalon for those on a budget the range of bikes they have are good value for money.



I agree that is why I chose the bike as an example


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1442386"]
41 pages???

Sub £99.99 you're not going to get any decent bike, and I think it's fair to call these BSOs.

Above that price you'll still find them, but they'll be mixed up with bikes from Decathlon and Carrera so you have to be careful.

There's nothing snobby about the term, it's just appropriate disdain for the stores that rip off the ignorant with soft-metal junk.
[/quote]


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would believe they have them for sale. I would be surprised if they sold many any.



Lol I was going to make an edit and add that, but I was posting from my Android and couldn't be arsed lol. I can't imagine anyone spending a grand on a bike getting it from Argos...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Lol I was going to make an edit and add that, but I was posting from my Android and couldn't be arsed lol. I can't imagine anyone spending a grand on a bike getting it from Argos...



Neither can I. Especially when you get it home and find its a set of garden furniture instead!!!


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Neither can I. Especially when you get it home and find its a set of garden furniture instead!!!


----------



## NeilEB (27 Jul 2011)

It might be useful to list some....erm...reputable? bikes at various price levels.

For example:
Sub-£100: steer clear
£100-£150: Decathalon, Carerra etc

That sort of thing? 

(NB: I'm not stating this is the case, I'm a newbie and know nothing about bikes, just what I've picked up from 41 pages of this thread....)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

NeilEB said:


> It might be useful to list some....erm...reputable? bikes at various price levels.
> 
> For example:
> Sub-£100: steer clear
> ...



That is a good idea for a sticky - Admin what do you think?


----------



## ianrauk (27 Jul 2011)

NeilEB said:


> It might be useful to list some....erm...reputable? bikes at various price levels.
> 
> For example:
> Sub-£100: steer clear
> ...



Blimey.. some one get this man a beer....


----------



## NeilEB (27 Jul 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Blimey.. some one get this man a beer....



Thankfully it wasn't all in one sitting - otherwise forget the beer, I'd need a straightjacket.


----------



## betty swollocks (27 Jul 2011)

Another thing with BSO's (and I have no qualms in calling them this) is the human exploitation element.
I simply cannot see how a bike can cost £59.99 or £79.99, without people having been exploited along the way......given the cost of the raw materials, the various manufacturing processes, the assembly processes, shipping, distribution and profit margins etc.
There are some poor bastards, slaving away for a pittance in some far-eastern sweatshop, you can be sure.


----------



## benb (27 Jul 2011)

betty swollocks said:


> Another thing with BSO's (and I have no qualms in calling them this) is the human exploitation element.
> I simply cannot see how a bike can cost £59.99 or £79.99, without people having been exploited along the way......given the cost of the raw materials, the various manufacturing processes, the assembly processes, shipping, distribution and profit margins etc.
> There are some poor bastards, slaving away for a pittance in some far-eastern sweatshop, you can be sure.



To be fair, I'm not sure that's substantially different in the more expensive bikes.


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

betty swollocks said:


> Another thing with BSO's (and I have no qualms in calling them this) is the human exploitation element.
> I simply cannot see how a bike can cost £59.99 or £79.99, without people having been exploited along the way......given the cost of the raw materials, the various manufacturing processes, the assembly processes, shipping, distribution and profit margins etc.
> There are some poor bastards, slaving away for a pittance in some far-eastern sweatshop, you can be sure.



I bet the margins all along the way will be tiny, and they're mashing out *huge* volumes of them for sale worldwide. I mean look at those full sus things, they all look basically the same like they could have been made in the same sweatshop factory.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> I bet the margins all along the way will be tiny, and they're mashing out *huge* volumes of them for sale worldwide. I mean look at those full sus things, they all look basically the same like they could have been made in the same sweatshop factory.



Do they? I have not seen a cheap full sus with multi link hydraulic suspension


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Do they? I have not seen a cheap full sus with multi link hydraulic suspension



Well, I was generalising  but the supermarket BSO's seem to follow the same pattern as this thing from Tesco:


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Well, I was generalising  but the supermarket BSO's seem to follow the same pattern as this thing from Tesco:



The sign of a bad full sus is the coil spring IMHO


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The sign of a bad full sus is the coil spring IMHO



The thing that gets me about those bikes, is that shock absorber thing is bound to be a bit of a weak link, whats to stop the whole rear assembly from moving from side to side? There's bound to be some torsion and they just don't look like they could handle it, like they will bend in the middle, and not in the wya they are supposed to.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> The thing that gets me about those bikes, is that shock absorber thing is bound to be a bit of a weak link, whats to stop the whole rear assembly from moving from side to side? There's bound to be some torsion and they just don't look like they could handle it, like they will bend in the middle, and not in the wya they are supposed to.


I have only ever seen one snap in half. All seem to be like riding a bouncy castle though. Good sus is the kind you don't know is working IMHO.


----------



## abo (27 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have only ever seen one snap in half. All seem to be like riding a bouncy castle though. Good sus is the kind you don't know is working IMHO.



Heh, the amount of people bouncing along on them round here who like they are riding horses.

No criticism BTW, it just looks a bit odd


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Heh, the amount of people bouncing along on them round here who like they are riding horses.
> 
> No criticism BTW, it just looks a bit odd


It's one of my biggest criticisms of those machines


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (27 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> It strikes me that a person who can only afford a cheap bike shouldn't be looked down because of it. A bso is a bike it may not be as good as the high end ones but properly maintained it will get you there.





No it won't , it will be impossible to maintain it properly, it WILL break, it WILL, go out of adjustement/true, if it even was in the forst place.

A BSO isn't a cheap bike it's a bad bike.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (27 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thanks for the suggestion.
> Looks a safe bet (nice bike)
> £100
> So anyone with a sub £100 budget has a problem.
> ...



Taxis!


----------



## apollo179 (28 Jul 2011)

I dont think its quite right that in circumstances where someone cant afford to spend over £100 and whos demands would not be exessive that still the view of the forum seems to be either save up or get a taxi.
Surely these circumstances are the bso niche , when buying a bso is the acceptable (only) alternative.
(excluding buying 2nd hand because the subject knows nothinbg about bikes and if he were to go and buy a 2nd hand bike he would likely end up with a 2nd hand bso).
(excluding stealing one)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I dont think its quite right that in circumstances where someone cant afford to spend over £100 and whos demands would not be exessive that still the view of the forum seems to be either save up or get a taxi.
> Surely these circumstances are the bso niche , when buying a bso is the acceptable (only) alternative.
> (excluding buying 2nd hand because the subject knows nothinbg about bikes and if he were to go and buy a 2nd hand bike he would likely end up with a 2nd hand bso).
> (excluding stealing one)



As I said better to save money until the person can afford £100 than to waste it on a BSO.


----------

