# buying cheap bikes



## bonj2 (2 Mar 2008)

It's just occurred to me that I don't agree with the oft-trotted-out recommendation to beginners to "buy a cheap bike, then if you don't get into it, you haven't wasted much".
In my opinion, if you want to get into cycling, then if you have got to the stage of finding a forum and asking a question about bikes you have obviously already made the decision that you are going to become a cyclist. So there is no point trying to pretend that you aren't one yet until you've got a certain amount of experience on a bike and are used to it.
No, you might aswell buy the most expensive bike you can afford. That way, you are more likely to think "well, I've spent all this money, I might aswell ride the bloody thing" and you are a lot more likely to want to ride your bike if it is a really nice one than if it's a shitter.
I think we should stop recommending "spend a maximum of 3 hundred until you know cycling is definitely for you". Whether a beginner knows it or not, cycling definitely IS for them, by the fact that they have found this forum, and therefore we should tell them that. Also, we should warn them against falling into the trap of having an entry level bike that they can't be bothered to ride 'cos it's not that great and not minding getting lazy and letting the motivation to cycle fall by the wayside because they won't have wasted that much money.
In other words, a financial commitment is a good thing, just for the fact that it is a commitment.


----------



## curve (2 Mar 2008)

I would definatley agree to buy the best bike that you can afford bearing in mind to also budget for all the little extras.

I am just about to buy a new bike and have set myself a budget for what I can comfortably afford and if I don't get much use out of it then there is always Ebay.


----------



## mickle (2 Mar 2008)

This is very painful for me......



I agree with you Bonjela.

There, I've said it.


----------



## HLaB (2 Mar 2008)

My first bike when I returned to cycling was a cheap bike, mainly because I wanted a hack but if I was buying again and have since, I would of upped the budget.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Mar 2008)

Good advice. Cheap means low quality kit that wears quickly and needs constant fettling. 

Having said that I am after a £10 clunker to use on my turbo, as I have decided to overcome my hatred of the things and there is no way my good bikes are going on one.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (2 Mar 2008)

But again I think there's something to be said to getting something cheap to start on and then spend your money on something good once you have the experience and knowhow to know what it is you actually want? Your first bike then makes a useful spare / winter hack.


----------



## simoncc (2 Mar 2008)

If you live in a flat area and just want a bike for short trips around town it is amazing what you can get these days that will do the job. A friend of mine has bought a brand new 12 geared road bike with mudguards and an alloy rack for £130 and although it is quite heavy it certainly isn't rubbish quality.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Mar 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> But again I think there's something to be said to getting something cheap to start on and then spend your money on something good once you have the experience and knowhow to know what it is you actually want? Your first bike then makes a useful spare / winter hack.



Can see the logic of it, to an extent, but still think method of buying good bike to start off with is better. If you want a 'hack'/pub bike then just look for a mechanically sound rigid mtb in the local free ads paper.
What knowledge about what you want is experience on a cheap bike going to give you other than that you want something _better_?
The only thing it's good to avoid is people falling into the rut of not _needing_ a better bike, but _wanting_ something better, but not feeling justified to get it because the bike they've got is still suitable, and not riding it as much as they otherwise would.
There's a bike in the communal parking area of my block of flats, a decathlon 7.1 sport road bike, still with the flat pedals + toe straps on it and the cassette still shiny clean - this says to me it's obviously never been ridden any more than a test ride and a couple of runs to pay lip service to the decision to buy it. It's a shame, really, as save for the fact it's not got a triple, it's a perfectly good bike.


----------



## summerdays (2 Mar 2008)

Having run my first bike into the ground through lack of care, I think there is an arguement to buying cheapish (not including supermarket bikes here). Far better that I learnt on that, than on something very flash. 

That said, I leave my bike locked up all over town so I don't see the need for something really nice, as it is I get comments about it's a nice bike which always gets me worried (depending on what they look like). 

Maybe its because I've yet to experience a nice bike to convince me that it would be worth spending a vaste sum of money on it.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Mar 2008)

how did you 'run it into the ground'? I suggest worn components could be replaced, as and when they get too worn. Agree with getting a cheap bike for anti theft purposes though, although it's no reason not to have a nice bike aswell. I wouldn't ever leave my MTB locked up anywhere, with any lock, apart from possibly in my van locked up with my hefty chain, and insured - it's far far far too nickable. Although if going to the LBS i'll just take it inside with me, although it does get a bit crowded at times as everybody else does that.


----------



## summerdays (2 Mar 2008)

I know I can replace worn components but to be honest I'm still learning alot from everyone on here. I've had my bike for over a year and a half and yet I don't know the order of components like Deore, LX, Tiagra (?) etc so how would I work out which good bike I should go for. 

So first bike cost me £250 for my Dawes Saratoga Deluxe, and the next one is going to be a Giant Escape M Zero I think. But I'm not completely certain why I'm looking at that one rather than another bike. I'm hoping I'm taking a step up on the components and I'm going to have the old bike which I can try doing some of the maintenance such as changing chain/chainset etc on, whilst still having a good bike which isn't messed up by me tinkering. Plus I'm not exactly a high earner


----------



## bonj2 (2 Mar 2008)

summerdays said:


> I know I can replace worn components but to be honest I'm still learning alot from everyone on here. I've had my bike for over a year and a half and yet I don't know the order of components like Deore, LX, Tiagra (?) etc so how would I work out which good bike I should go for.
> 
> So first bike cost me £250 for my Dawes Saratoga Deluxe, and the next one is going to be a Giant Escape M Zero I think. But I'm not completely certain why I'm looking at that one rather than another bike. I'm hoping I'm taking a step up on the components and I'm going to have the old bike which I can try doing some of the maintenance such as changing chain/chainset etc on, whilst still having a good bike which isn't messed up by me tinkering. Plus I'm not exactly a high earner



just saying though that you shouldn't feel like you're "not a good enough cyclist" or "not good enough at maintenance" to have an expensive bike.
If anything, it's the other way round, as expensive bikes will need less maintenance as components won't break. The main thing is, as with cars, is just not to ignore it if you think something's not right.

Deore and LX is MTB stuff - tiagra is road. Road stuff goes (in descending order): Dura ace -> Ultegra -> 105 -> Tiagra -> Sora. (although apparently ultegra is being deprecated)
MTB goes XTR, XT, LX. However, XTR is just the newest technology (i think the "R" stands for 'release') - it's what they put gizmos and things they've just brought out onto. So apparently 2007's XTR will be largely similar to 2008's XT. No idea what 'Deore' means, think it's one step lower than LX but not sure.
However, there's not much difference between them apart from a slight difference in weight. e.g. tiagra shifters will shift and brake perfectly well and (at the risk of being shot down in flames) not many cyclists would notice any difference in shifting performance between them, if there's any way in which there could possibly even be any.


----------



## Steve Austin (2 Mar 2008)

Dura ace - Ultegra SL -Ultegra - - 105 - Tiagra - Sora
XTR - XT - LX - deore. but there is a new SLX range that will replace LX.
the R in XTR stands for race. And XTR is very very good.

And Bonj, there is a lot of difference between components throughout the range.
and even the most humble of cyclist will be able to tell the difference


----------



## bonj2 (2 Mar 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> Dura ace - Ultegra SL -Ultegra - - 105 - Tiagra - Sora
> XTR - XT - LX - deore. but there is a new SLX range that will replace LX.
> the R in XTR stands for race. And XTR is very very good.
> 
> ...



yeah yeah yeah course there is steve. WHAT difference. and why


----------



## mickle (2 Mar 2008)

bonj said:


> yeah yeah yeah course there is steve. WHAT difference. and why


Tee hee! Tell him steve!


----------



## domtyler (2 Mar 2008)

bonj said:


> yeah yeah yeah course there is steve. WHAT difference. and why



To someone with little experience, or interest, then the amount of difference is very small, negligible.

BTW, I agree with your OP, but I have always advised to go for decent quality anyway. I would only advise spending a very small amount of money if it was not possible to store in a safe place for instance.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (2 Mar 2008)

well i did the "buy a budget bike just in case" thing. the carrera virtuoso was perfectly adequate, but i've spent plenty upgrading (carbon forks, tiagra groupset), and for that money i could possibly have got something better in the first place. however, had i not got the cycling bug back, i would have wasted the £250 the bike cost in the first place. and i now have a decent (albeit not top spec) bike which has cost whatever over several years. in fact, the bike sat in the shed for over a year without being ridden, taking a change of job to get me back on it.


----------



## domtyler (2 Mar 2008)

alecstilleyedye said:


> well i did the "buy a budget bike just in case" thing. the carrera virtuoso was perfectly adequate, but i've spent plenty upgrading (carbon forks, tiagra groupset), and for that money i could possibly have got something better in the first place. however, had i not got the cycling bug back, i would have wasted the £250 the bike cost in the first place. and i now have a decent (albeit not top spec) bike which has cost whatever over several years. in fact, the bike sat in the shed for over a year without being ridden, taking a change of job to get me back on it.



Hmm, this is not the normal philosophy of a Mac user. I thought you would have just gone for the one that cost the most, looked the prettiest but performance was sluggish and kept crashing?


----------



## fossyant (3 Mar 2008)

Hmm, everyone's opinion is likely to be a little different..... you need to spend a reasonable amount to get a good bike - say £500.

But what price do you tell people - get a £5k one then...? There are very noticable differences in quality, finish and seals as you move up the range, and whilst it may not look too different (e.g. Tiagra through to Dura-Ace chainsets look similar) they will be stiffer, lighter and better sealed.

My old 7400 Dura-Ace groupset is fantastic, and has been a worthwhile purchase - 16 years no components ever broken - only wear and tear items replaced....

I wouldn't recommend a £200-£300 bike if someone wanted to do it seriously - I'd say minimum of say £500 and Tiagra groupset


----------



## alecstilleyedye (3 Mar 2008)

domtyler said:


> Hmm, this is not the normal philosophy of a Mac user. I thought you would have just gone for the one that cost the most, looked the prettiest but performance was sluggish and kept crashing?



well, like most macs i have used (especially the osx ones), i find crashes to be extremely rare, even though the speed can be high at times. the fact that some things are cooler than others, i couldn't care less about. my carrera and my mac both do what i require of them, i don't give a flying one about whether they are cool in the eyes of others or not.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (3 Mar 2008)

Well, when I bought my bike I tried out several bikes first. To be honest at the time I couldn't make out a big difference between the £400-£500 bikes I tried and the £200 one I finally bought. The cheap bike was obviously heavier but at the time not noticeably less fun to ride around. 

Do I wish I'd bought a more expensive bike now? Maybe - but at the time it allowed me some more money for other bike bits - a child trailer, panniers etc.

Also, my experience on a cheap bike has helped me know what to look for if I get a secondhand bike next, which I'd quite like to do.


----------



## col (3 Mar 2008)

I agree with PPBT here,2 to 300 hundred is plenty to get a decent commute to and from work,and the weekend ride.The only time i would go dearer,is if i was into more cycling than that,and doing a lot more milage than just a short commute each day.Saying that,years ago,i was never off my bike,and the cheaper model i bought,a coup de mond if i remember rightly,did me well,with no problems,for years.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Mar 2008)

I either buy my bikes secondhand for under £200 or fish them out of skips and build them up with whatever I've got in the bits box. It's much more fun than actually riding them. I'd never buy a new bike.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (3 Mar 2008)

What's a "cheap" bike? When I gave up my car around 3 years ago I bought a Claud Butler Stoneriver (MTB) which was £250. I hadn't bought or rode a bike in around 12 years and was gobsmacked by how good the bike was in both build and new technology (trigger gears!). True enough I bought a more expensive road bike about 12 months later, but never for a moment did I regret buying the "cheap" MTB. In fact if I had spent more money on a better MTB to start off with, I woulf have been reluctant to go and spend money on a road bike.


----------



## P.H (3 Mar 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> What's a "cheap" bike?


Exactly, unless you define cheap the question is nonsense.
Buy a bike that's fit for purpose, it's that simple. Sometimes that'll cost £200 other times it'll cost £3,000. But it dosen't always follow that spending more will allow you to do more on it and not having the right bike is always a poor excuse for not doing a ride.


----------



## Ludwig (3 Mar 2008)

It's more fun bringing back and old wreck that has been sat in a shed for years. You can drop a a real classic lightweight for very little money and the build quality and craftsmanship is far better that most modern bikes. There are the cycling nerds who will pay silly money for a bike but the cheapo bikes these days are very good.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Mar 2008)

A bit OT, but it's not just bikes. When I started to play the guitar twenty five years ago, you could either buy cheap crap copies or horribly expensive Fenders and Gibsons. Now, my main stage guitar is a two hundred quid job which is the equivalent of the "cheap crap" from all those years ago (in that a beginner could buy it), but much, much better in every way. Bikes (barring the truly awful sub - rubbish £75.99 full sussers) have gone much the same way.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Mar 2008)

Ludwig said:


> It's more fun bringing back and old wreck that has been sat in a shed for years. You can drop a a real classic lightweight for very little money and the build quality and craftsmanship is far better that most modern bikes. There are the cycling nerds who will pay silly money for a bike but the cheapo bikes these days are very good.


Having been cycling since the sixties, i definately would not agree with that.


----------



## bonj2 (3 Mar 2008)

fossyant said:


> I wouldn't recommend a £200-£300 bike if someone wanted to do it seriously - I'd say minimum of say £500 and Tiagra groupset



in what way does tiagra shift better than sora?
cos i don't buy it does.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (3 Mar 2008)

bonj said:


> in what way does tiagra shift better than sora?
> cos i don't buy it does.



my summer bike (see sig) has tiagra, the winter bike has sora. the tiagra does shift better, the sora usually requires two flicks of the lever to change down on the rear mech, although the sora does allow for a bit of "feathering" of the front mech. 

of course it could be that the cables etc have a bearing in all this.


----------



## Steve Austin (4 Mar 2008)

I would recommend 105 as a minimum groupset for anyone. it shifts better, lasts longer and will give better room for upgrading, as its 10 speed.
sora, and Tiagra are both very clunky in comparison to 105, and need more maintenance to work well, and will *never* last as long as 105/ultegra.


----------



## Arch (4 Mar 2008)

I think the niceties of different marques of gearing are well beyond a beginner. Well, a beginner like I would be. I know there are folk who want to do tonnes of research and look at all the niceties before they buy anything, but I fear you can end up putting a decision off for ever that way. To me a beginner (a real beginner, not someone who already cycles and wants to choose their first 'specialist' bike, be that road, or MTB or whatever), needs a bike that works, probably under a less than perfect maintenance regime, doesn't weigh so much that it's off-putting, and has some scope for personalising and tweaking as the person gets to know it, and their own abilities. And 'cheap' bikes can fit that bill very well - my first 'grown up' bike, the one I brought to York with me, and the one I got into cycling on, was a Halfords ladies town bike - cost me £120, about 10 years ago. As I learned what was good and bad about it, bits got replaced, and by the time it was pinched it was exactly what I needed for everyday about town riding. By then I also had a classic tourer and a lightweight racy tourer, and had my first eye on recumbents.

But 'cheap' is indeed relative. I still regard £250-300 as a significant outlay. To me, a 'cheap' bike is a £59.99 special from Asda, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (4 Mar 2008)

It's very easy to forget that not everyone physically has a lot of money to spend on a bike. As Arch implies, two or three hundred quid is an awful lot of money for some people. If this is all they can afford to spend, who are we to say they shouldn't be happy with whatever bike they end up with?


----------



## TheDoctor (4 Mar 2008)

I think we're all in danger of violently agreeing with each other here. Once you get away from the £60 full-sus BSO from the back of the Sunday papers, they're all not too bad. Even the cheapest bits these days work pretty well, and brakes in particular have improved immeasurably from the first 10 speed bike I had when I was a very young timelord. One of my bikes has Tourney gears - the cheapest ones Shimano do, and while they're noticeably clunkier than 105, they still work pretty well and hardly ever need tweaking. If someone is happy with their bike, whatever it cost, that's a *good* thing. The more of us the better.


----------



## byegad (4 Mar 2008)

I agree with the Doctor. 
I feel that there is a lowest Price Point you don't want to get below but once over that point the ability to replace worn parts with better quality ones means your cheap bike gets better every time you need to replace a component. 
I'd guess the lowest Price Point is around £250-£300. My wife bought a Discovery 201 some years back (£200 IIRC) and the only downside is the 21 speed Megarange gears. The contemporary 301 came with a 24 speed set up which would give a better upgrade opportunity. 
As to telling the difference between adjacent Shimano groups. You would need more skill than I possess to notice. Between the top and bottom sets there are noticable differences. However the biggest one is felt in your pocket.


----------



## Andy in Sig (4 Mar 2008)

I suggest the following is the ideal situation for a beginner: find somebody who knows his way around a bike and who is prepared to give advice and then get a second hand bike to the tune of around 300 quid (with expert friend there to check out the purchase). This should result in the acquisition of a pretty high quality bike which will not be a disheartening and so off putting ride.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (4 Mar 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> I would recommend 105 as a minimum groupset for anyone. it shifts better, lasts longer and will give better room for upgrading, as its 10 speed.
> sora, and Tiagra are both very clunky in comparison to 105, and need more maintenance to work well, and will *never* last as long as 105/ultegra.



Why would you want 10 gears on the back? There's 7 on my bike and I still sometimes feel like it's too many.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (4 Mar 2008)

byegad said:


> I agree with the Doctor.
> I feel that there is a lowest Price Point you don't want to get below but once over that point the ability to replace worn parts with better quality ones means your cheap bike gets better every time you need to replace a component.
> I'd guess the lowest Price Point is around £250-£300.



I think it's probably less than that. My bike was £200 new, but now you can get it for as low as £160 online. It'd be an interesting to see what the cheapest new bike us forummers can find it that we would still deem 'acceptable'.

The problem I guess is how you define 'acceptable'. I'll start off by saying that plastic V-brake arms are right out. The old mountain bike my daughter has has them. Hideous. If I try riding it it's not possible to lock the wheels.


----------



## col (4 Mar 2008)

Now my carrera vulcan was less than £200 when i got mine,that included going halfs on the rapid fire shifters,instead of twist grip,and a new sealed bottom bracket,its been great,and im still happy with it


----------



## bonj2 (4 Mar 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> I would recommend 105 as a minimum groupset for anyone. it shifts better, lasts longer and will give better room for upgrading, as its 10 speed.
> sora, and Tiagra are both very clunky in comparison to 105, and need more maintenance to work well, and will *never* last as long as 105/ultegra.



105 doesn't HAVE to be 10 speed, i've got 9 speed 105 on my road bike.


----------



## bonj2 (4 Mar 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> sora, and Tiagra are both very clunky in comparison to 105, and need more maintenance to work well, and will *never* last as long as 105/ultegra.



All this talk of "anyone who knows anything about bikes can _appreciate_ the difference" 
Yet you aren't able to explain it...
You sound like the women that say "well if you have to ask me what's wrong, i'm not going to tell you!"


----------



## Steve Austin (4 Mar 2008)

Bonj, you are trolling the beginners threads, get back to pedalling your tripe in the soapbox

NEW 105 is 10 speed
I can't explain the difference, but anyone who even flicked the shifters of a stationary bike would be able to feel the difference between dura-ace and sora. You cannot argue with that. Its FACT.


----------



## fossyant (4 Mar 2008)

Wind your neck in Bonjelly............ The higher up groupsets do work better - there is a difference, that bit crisper and quicker. You'll notice more of a difference as the groupsets are used - the expensive ones remain like new - but that's what you would expect if you paid a load of wonga more !

Components are much better these days - when I bought my Ultegra and Dura-Ace groupsets, you wouldn't touch 105 then...Tiagra was not to even be considered - but now Tiagra and 105 are good. - But they have had to be as Campag bottom end groupsets were always rather good.


----------



## bonj2 (4 Mar 2008)

fossyant said:


> Wind your neck in Bonjelly............ The higher up groupsets do work better



Repeating the same assertion won't make it any truer.



The only difference is the badge is a better status symbol, and weight.
If there was any actual difference in performance, you'd be able to elaborate something like "they shift quicker _because_ there is less friction _due to the fact that_ they have a grommit made of X and smoother operation _because of_ the fact that they've got a 4 part linkage instead of 2 part". This lack of a good reason why is the crux of the matter, and this is WHY I think you're talking out of your arse, not because i just like being combative. Some cyclist somewhere these days know pretty much everything there is to know about bike components. I just think that someone somewhere would have described the difference if there was any, and it would become common knowledge WHAT is different from one to the other.

but as it is...


Steve Austin said:


> I can't explain the difference



All the bike shops I've ever asked have said the only discernible difference is weight, and that goes for all the manufacturers - shimano, SRAM, and campag. They can't ALL be wrong. It seems to me the only people who say that the higher up ones are better are cyclists who have GOT those higher up components. I know i've got a sram x7 mech on my MTB now, which replaced an X9 which had took a knock, it works EXACTLY the same, apart from if you look up the weight is about 50g or so heavier.


----------



## Steve Austin (4 Mar 2008)

Bonj, you do talk some nonsense.

maybe this thread should be moved to sopabox as it has no place in Beginners.
I am not saying that sora, alivio does not do a job, BUT Dura-ace, XTR does it better, for longer.
There is a reason folk buy the more expensive groupsets, and it ain't just to prove a point, or to be purposefully contrary, it is because they are better. 

debate is pointless with you Bonj. 
As you are never wrong........ no matter how bizarre your nonsense may be


----------



## fossyant (4 Mar 2008)

OK OK.... Here goes...I can get nerdy here.....

This is 7400 series Dura Ace which will be similar if differences to Ultegra as now, and as then - early to mid 90's - I run DA and Ultregra on both road bikes that are about the same age (actually the Ultegra is newer)....

Dura Ace headset 7400 - has additional weather seals and titanium coated bearing races = prolonged life (16 years on mine) - Ultegra was sealed, no additional treatment.

DA Rear Mech - sealed jocky wheels with ceramic bushes - harder wearing, less resistance - Ultegra was just sealed Mech itself is machined to tighter tolerances, so faster shifting - I can vouch for that.

BB - lighter and better sealed - both fit and forget so can't comment - cheaper ones do wear out and fail...... been there and done it....

Front Mech - similar - DA is better looking/finished/lighter

Chainset - DA stiffer lighter - shifts about the same. Much better finished.

Levers/brakeset - better response, lighter, much better looking

Hubs - better sealed, grease ports, no stripping needed - open port, squirt in grease, close. Ultegra needed to be stripped.

Need I go on.......


----------



## alecstilleyedye (4 Mar 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> Bonj, you are trolling the beginners threads, get back to pedalling your tripe in the soapbox
> 
> NEW 105 is 10 speed
> I can't explain the difference, but anyone who even flicked the shifters of a stationary bike would be able to feel the difference between dura-ace and sora. You cannot argue with that. Its FACT.



sorry to dispute, but i have ridden a bike with ultegra shifters etc and they were not appreciably better than my tiagra, although they may well have been lighter. apparently the only difference between tiagra at one end and dura ace at the other, is the materials as they are mechanically identical.


----------



## gbb (4 Mar 2008)

Heres a comparison for you...cheap vs moderately priced bikes and how they compare.
Raleigh Chimera. Sora, Rigida wheels, unknown hubs, Ofmega crankset, heavy chromo frame.
Cost me £225 5 years ago perhaps. Its done 4000 miles and all i've replaced is the chain and tyres.
Thats a freekin good bike in my book.
I took it out tonight for the first time in ages...still impressed with its relative comfort, speed and feel.

Bianchi Via Nirone Xenon, £550, 3 years old...you know the rest...its pretty standard.


It doesnt matter which bike i go out on on my longer rides...i dont get round much, if any, faster on the Bianchi against the Raleigh.

The Sora behaves flawlessly as does the Xenon.
My average speeds are very similar on either bike.
I probably can climb a bit faster on the Bianchi, but i cant quantify it.
I'm sure i can accelerate faster on the Bianchi....but then the Raleigh can probably carry speed better when going downhill.

The real difference is in the mind. I prefer the Bianchi..of course. Its about looks, feel, ownership etc etc...all things you can't really quantify.

Is the Bianchi a better bike...yes.
Will it make me faster...i dont think so.
So, is the Raleigh a better bike then..based on the fact its cheaper and does almost everything the Bianchi does....possibly.


----------



## Steve Austin (4 Mar 2008)

The Suspension forks on my MTB cost me near 500 quid, RRP was a bit more than that;
Do they work better than £80 forks? yes
Do they have more functions than £80 forks? yes
Will they last longer than £80 forks? yes
Are they better forks than £80 forks? yes
Are they worth £500? probably not, but then again, would £80 forks have been as good an investment? no. No they wouldn't


Are plastic bodied pedals any good? no
Are steel tubed bars any good? no
Are cheap wire bead tyres heavy? yes
Do cheap tyres grip well? no

And
Are cheap bikes better than more expensive ones? ........?........ I know what i think


----------



## bonj2 (4 Mar 2008)

fossyant said:


> OK OK.... Here goes...I can get nerdy here.....
> 
> This is 7400 series Dura Ace which will be similar if differences to Ultegra as now, and as then - early to mid 90's - I run DA and Ultregra on both road bikes that are about the same age (actually the Ultegra is newer)....
> 
> ...



ok, i've bolded the bits which are tangible, i.e. the sort of answer i was hoping you'd give. The rest while I won't argue with your experience on, is along the same lines as before, of 'better finished' / lighter / 'it's just nicer'.

I've no doubt dura-ace is harder wearing and longer lasting, but it's also more expensive so with sora which is x times cheaper, you can afford to replace it x times more often.
I'm primarily talking about how well it works, i.e. how well moving components work.

'Machined to tighter tolerances', where have you got that bit from? Did you work for shimano?


----------



## bonj2 (4 Mar 2008)

Steve Austin said:


> The Suspension forks on my MTB cost me near 500 quid, RRP was a bit more than that;
> Do they work better than £80 forks? yes
> Do they have more functions than £80 forks? yes
> Will they last longer than £80 forks? yes
> ...




Well FORKS, yes!  nobody's denying fox and marzocchi are better than your SR suntour and RST, Steve.
- i'm not talking about ANY bike components, i'm talking specifically about differences between the same type but different 'levels' of gears, i.e. shifters/mechs, from the same manufacturer.

btw I'd agree with all the above.


----------



## bonj2 (4 Mar 2008)

alecstilleyedye said:


> sorry to dispute, but i have ridden a bike with ultegra shifters etc and they were not appreciably better than my tiagra, although they may well have been lighter. apparently the only difference between tiagra at one end and dura ace at the other, is the materials as they are mechanically identical.


exactly, that's exactly what i'm trying to tell them.

they use the same moulds just different (more expensive, and lighter) materials for the higher up ones.



gbb said:


> ...The real difference is in the mind. I prefer the Bianchi..of course. Its about looks, feel, ownership etc etc...all things you can't really quantify.
> 
> Is the Bianchi a better bike...yes.
> Will it make me faster...i dont think so.
> So, is the Raleigh a better bike then..based on the fact its cheaper and does almost everything the Bianchi does....possibly.



the heart prefers the bianchi, the mind the raleigh...


----------



## fossyant (4 Mar 2008)

Well it works better, and lasts better young man..... been there and done it for 16 years comparing the two top groupsets of Shimano, and Deore LX from MTB's..... 

Quick example...

My DA rear mech - grab the edge of the cage near the bottom jocky, wiggle it, any play - no...how old is it ? Grab a mech like Ultegra or earlier, wiggle that, play...ohh yes..

Not being funny mate, but there are folk that change their bikes like their undies, waste a huge amount of cash on depreciation...some of us bought the best we could, then have used the bugger...my next bike will be a £5k one, and I'll use it for 20 years.... - just like my Herety was the dogs danglies 16 or so years ago....... good value I'd say......


----------



## fossyant (4 Mar 2008)

Funk it I'm off to bed------------ move to the cafe please............... yawn.....no telling these young snappers who think they know best.....blah blooming DURA ACE/RECORD chuffing BLAH............


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Mar 2008)

The last bike I bought was my most expensive yet - £77. Mind you, I only got frame & forks for that. The previous one cost £35, the one before that £33, the one before that £21. Every one an absolute cracker, even the first (£21) an old Carlton I only moved on from 'cos it was a bit small for me. A friend still rides it - and loves it. You want a good bike on a limited budget? Establish what frame size you need (rule of thumb: inside leg -9"), get on ebay, google any possibles that come up. £200-£300? Pah!


----------



## bonj2 (6 Mar 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']The last bike I bought was my most expensive yet - £77. Mind you, I only got frame & forks for that. The previous one cost £35, the one before that £33, the one before that £21. Every one an absolute cracker, even the first (£21) an old Carlton I only moved on from 'cos it was a bit small for me. A friend still rides it - and loves it. You want a good bike on a limited budget? Establish what frame size you need (rule of thumb: inside leg -9"), get on ebay, google any possibles that come up. £200-£300? Pah![/QUOTE]

then you've got to get a groupset, easily a couple of hundred, for the cheapest.
then you're into the realms of the lower-end decathlon bikes, but they're brand new


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Mar 2008)

bonj said:


> then you've got to get a groupset, easily a couple of hundred, for the cheapest.
> then you're into the realms of the lower-end decathlon bikes, but they're brand new



Do wot John? I've never bought a groupset in my life. Good ebay bikes come complete with perfectly good groupsets. (My last-but one was Shimano 600 gears + 105 brakes + mavic rims on Campag hubs - and change out of £40.)


----------



## bonj2 (7 Mar 2008)

thought you said you "only got frame & forks for that" ? (for £77)?
where did the rest come from if you didn't buy a groupset?


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Mar 2008)

My last-but-one bike.


----------



## bonj2 (7 Mar 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']My last-but-one bike.[/QUOTE]

so why did you even bother getting a new one, just to get new frame and forks?
What was wrong with the old frame and forks? 
Hardly seems worth it, unless it was a really super-duper frame, but (and no disrespect, but) for £77?


----------



## bonj2 (7 Mar 2008)

in other words what i'm trying to say, is, I'm sure a £77 frame off ebay is absolutely fine, and makes a great bike, but what's the point in replacing one cheap frame with another cheap frame?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Mar 2008)

For some of us, the fun is in building bikes. In my case, I gat much more out of tinkering, bargain hunting and building up a bike out of found bits, than riding the things.


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Mar 2008)

bonj said:


> in other words what i'm trying to say, is, I'm sure a £77 frame off ebay is absolutely fine, and makes a great bike, but what's the point in replacing one cheap frame with another cheap frame?



Depends what you get for your money. In my case, a Vitus 979 frame and forks in immaculate condition. Now made up with parts from my last-but-one, flies past anything else on the road, about £100, all told.


----------



## roadiewill (10 Mar 2008)

Just discovered this thread, and as Im new to road biking I thought Id comment. Having uprgraded my MTB with pretty much everything, I was not at all suprised at how much people will pay for road bikes - just to shave grams off of the weight. So, I started saving for my road bike a couple of months back, and as the money slowly (very slowly) began to pile up, I began to look more and more at higher models than my orignal bike that I was looking at - some low end decathalon. You end up thinking 'if I just save another £80 I can have that groupset instead of that one', and soon my budget increased dramatically (more than £300). However, I am only 16 with a weekend job that doesnt really create much dough. So, after much thought, I am going to stick with the giant scr 4 as it is within an achievable distance. Who cares if it only 2200 and for an estra 100 quid I could have Tiagra? It is still the same weight as the entire SCR range (which was suprising) and, when I get it, it'll be just as fast as the SCR1. My point being is that it is easy to get carried away with bikes, and surely, if the rider isnt fit enough, whats the pont in having a real expensive bike. It makes more sense to buy a cheaper bike, save some money, and get fitter yourself - at no cost at all!

laters


----------



## alecstilleyedye (10 Mar 2008)

roadiewill said:


> My point being is that it is easy to get carried away with bikes, and surely, if the rider isnt fit enough, whats the pont in having a real expensive bike. It makes more sense to buy a cheaper bike, save some money, and get fitter yourself - at no cost at all!
> 
> laters



from the mouths of babes…

(oops, not gay or owt )


----------



## bonj2 (10 Mar 2008)

roadiewill said:


> Just discovered this thread, and as Im new to road biking I thought Id comment. Having uprgraded my MTB with pretty much everything, I was not at all suprised at how much people will pay for road bikes - just to shave grams off of the weight. So, I started saving for my road bike a couple of months back, and as the money slowly (very slowly) began to pile up, I began to look more and more at higher models than my orignal bike that I was looking at - some low end decathalon. You end up thinking 'if I just save another £80 I can have that groupset instead of that one', and soon my budget increased dramatically (more than £300). However, I am only 16 with a weekend job that doesnt really create much dough. So, after much thought, I am going to stick with the giant scr 4 as it is within an achievable distance. Who cares if it only 2200 and for an estra 100 quid I could have Tiagra? It is still the same weight as the entire SCR range (which was suprising) and, when I get it, it'll be just as fast as the SCR1. My point being is that it is easy to get carried away with bikes, and surely, if the rider isnt fit enough, whats the pont in having a real expensive bike. It makes more sense to buy a cheaper bike, save some money, and get fitter yourself - at no cost at all!
> 
> laters


and how do you define fit "enough" to have an expensive bike?
Surely you dont' need to be _fit_ enough to have an expensive bike, but _rich_ enough.
I'll just point out also that I don't buy the 'get a heavier bike then you'll get fitter more quickly' mantra, in fact I think it's utterly moronic and am fervently against it, so you might aswell not bother going down that route.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (10 Mar 2008)

ah, but do you really want to be an unfit fatty on a pinarello prince, looking like an absolute berk with more money than sense? all the gear, no idea springs to mind.


----------



## Steve Austin (10 Mar 2008)




----------



## roadiewill (10 Mar 2008)

^
exactement


----------



## Over The Hill (10 Mar 2008)

Steve- When did you take my photo!

I bet he cant see what gear he is in. 

On the cheap bike debate....

Being fairly new to this I do not have the experience to debate this part against that, but I my two penne'th is when you talk cheap bike / expensive bike you are looking at new compared with new.

I got what I would consider a good bike ( A Felt f85 if you all want to pick me apart) I think it was a good £500 plus bike new but I got it for a little over £100 second hand. 

Bikes are very hardy and can really last a long time, problems are fairly obvious (when compared to a second hand car for example). 

Good things are a pleasure to use and make the whole experience good. I see little downside in buying a second hand bike. This seems to be the best of both words in that it is quality at the right price. 

Generally they will cost you nothing as once they are second hand you can sell it on for what you bought it for if you have saved up for the new one.


----------



## bonj2 (11 Mar 2008)

alecstilleyedye said:


> ah, but do you really want to be an unfit fatty on a pinarello prince, looking like an absolute berk with more money than sense? all the gear, no idea springs to mind.



if i was a rich fatty i'd rather be a rich fatty on a pinarello prince than a rich fatty on a rusty old shitter like a puch clubman or something equally shoot.

and since when has being fat equated to "no idea"?


----------



## swee'pea99 (11 Mar 2008)

Over The Hill said:


> Steve- When did you take my photo!
> 
> I bet he cant see what gear he is in.
> 
> ...



Just about everything in this post is absolutely spot on. In fact, everything. The only thing I would add is that second hand bikes have one other major advantage over new - they tend to be much less attractive to thieving scrotes.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (11 Mar 2008)

bonj said:


> if i was a rich fatty i'd rather be a rich fatty on a pinarello prince than a rich fatty on a rusty old shitter like a puch clubman or something equally shoot.
> 
> and since when has being fat equated to "no idea"?



well i'll hold my hands up to having had a "little" excess weight, and thanks to places like this, and the cycling club i now ride with, i am now fitter and more knowledgable. i'd hate to think what other local cyclists would have thought of the old me on some expensive bike as they zoomed past.

but correct, you can be fat and knowledgable, or fit and ignorant too.


----------



## Janeyb (12 Mar 2008)

Having just purchased a new bike, I realised how easy it is to get carried away and start looking at more and more expensive models. I work part time for no other reason than that I think life's too short to spend it working. I work 3 days a week and therefore don't earn very much. My husband is on contract and works 6 nights a month and likewise doesn't earn a massive salary. But we get out doing the things we love much more than we used to!

So when choosing the bike, I had to take this into consideration. Who cares that my bike only cost £270 rather than the £4-500 that I felt I should spend. I love it and it means that I can still afford the odd pub lunch while out for a jaunt.

Cycling isn't my only hobby - Jack of all trades and all that! So it also meant that I can afford to buy new bits for my other hobbies too.

Oh - and it'll hurt enough when I gounge a huge chunk out of my bike for the first time, but not as much as it would hurt on a pricier model!


----------

