Is this bike any good?

[Powely]

Go second hand but be selective on the model and condition.But to give you an example: I picked up a Giant Defy 3 for a friend for a little over £200 on eBay last year.

 

[antnee]

I looked at the allez sport compact, 2 nd hand But could't even justify it to myself so went out and got the T3 ok I know there are better bikes but for £300+ a few extras so probably spent about 80 quid more to get some more bits and pieces for I'm well chuffed.
But having said that if youv'e a tight budget then you will have to shop around but scan the net for all reviews of bikes in your price range but be prepeared to wait for that 2nd hand one thats hopefully not to far away to collect.

 

[HovR]

Good value, good fun, good money saver, good at not attracting attention when locked up in town, good at getting you from a to b without falling apart. good at meeting your expectations. All these and many more make the bike such a wonderful machine but a good road bike should be light, stiff, comfortable, structurally sound and it should come with components that optimise the performance.

Surely a reliable bike, that operates well and is fun to ride should be all that is needed to classify a bike as 'good'? Suggesting that a bike needs to cost more than £1000 or come equipped with the latest/most expensive technology or components to be considered a 'good' bike seems a bit bike-snobbish to me.

but a good road bike should be light, stiff, comfortable, structurally sound...

Implying that my particular road bike isn't comfortable or structurally sound just because it's an older steel frame? Many would argue that a quality steel frame is more comfortable than modern counterparts. As for weight, I'd hardly class 8 kilos as heavy (although it's probably put on a few hundred grams since I fitted the rear derailleur).

I'll give you that older steel frames are slightly more flexible than modern frames, although that doesn't seem to put me at a disadvantage on club rides when I'm routinely reaching the top of large climbs in the first few riders, where the majority are on 'stiff' aluminium and carbon bikes.

 

[festival]

Surely a reliable bike, that operates well and is fun to ride should be all that is needed to classify a bike as 'good'? Suggesting that a bike needs to cost more than £1000 or come equipped with the latest/most expensive technology or components to be considered a 'good' bike seems a bit bike-snobbish to me.



Implying that my particular road bike isn't comfortable or structurally sound just because it's an older steel frame? Many would argue that a quality steel frame is more comfortable than modern counterparts. As for weight, I'd hardly class 8 kilos as heavy (although it's probably put on a few hundred grams since I fitted the rear derailleur).

I'll give you that older steel frames are slightly more flexible than modern frames, although that doesn't seem to put me at a disadvantage on club rides when I'm routinely reaching the top of large climbs in the first few riders, where the majority are on 'stiff' aluminium and carbon bikes.

As I said at the start, everyone will have their own opinions on the subject, in my opinion the word 'good' means 'best',or 'of high standard'.
I didn't imply your bike was uncomfortable or unsound and nowhere did I suggest it had to have the latest/most expensive components to be considered 'good'.
Let me tell you where I am coming from, the 'cycle business' (retailers, manufacturers ,press etc) regard the entry level for serious riding to be £600/£700 and £1000 brings a refinement without spending limitless amounts and that's how I define a good bike.
I am sure you are aware prices up to £8000+ are not uncommon, and while the law of diminishing returns kick in long before you get to that amount, a £1000 cycle is certainly not so much to make anyone a snob.
Finally in all sincerity, I have an old bianchi that I now only use to ride to the shops and the like and in its time it was a 'good bike' but time moves on and it just doesn't compare to my current giant tcr winter bike, not to mention my giant advanced SL.
N.B. neither are close to £8000.
Anyway, I accept its all a matter of opinion.

 

[Powely]

What we each deem 'good' is subjective. Personally, after looking for a new bike for a several months I feel you need to spend £800+ to get anything 'good'. Below that the ranges seem basic. But I didn't think that when I bought the Carerra, I thought it seemed like a fair bike for the money. I think differently now however. I wish I had invested more at the time but when you're starting out it's hard to know if you'll get the use from a bike to justify spending the extra money. That's why I think going second hand for your first bike is a good option as you can always resell it for probably a similar amount should it not get the use you first thought it might. Although you need to do your research to make sure you're not buying a piece of crud.

 

[HovR]

As I said at the start, everyone will have their own opinions on the subject, in my opinion the word 'good' means 'best',or 'of high standard'.
I didn't imply your bike was uncomfortable or unsound and nowhere did I suggest it had to have the latest/most expensive components to be considered 'good'.
Let me tell you where I am coming from, the 'cycle business' (retailers, manufacturers ,press etc) regard the entry level for serious riding to be £600/£700 and £1000 brings a refinement without spending limitless amounts and that's how I define a good bike.
I am sure you are aware prices up to £8000+ are not uncommon, and while the law of diminishing returns kick in long before you get to that amount, a £1000 cycle is certainly not so much to make anyone a snob.
Finally in all sincerity, I have an old bianchi that I now only use to ride to the shops and the like and in its time it was a 'good bike' but time moves on and it just doesn't compare to my current giant tcr winter bike, not to mention my giant advanced SL.
N.B. neither are close to £8000.
Anyway, I accept its all a matter of opinion.

We have very different definitions of a good bike. I shalln't take it any further.

 

[Cycleops]

As I said at the start, everyone will have their own opinions on the subject, in my opinion the word 'good' means 'best',or 'of high standard'.
I didn't imply your bike was uncomfortable or unsound and nowhere did I suggest it had to have the latest/most expensive components to be considered 'good'.
Let me tell you where I am coming from, the 'cycle business' (retailers, manufacturers ,press etc) regard the entry level for serious riding to be £600/£700 and £1000 brings a refinement without spending limitless amounts and that's how I define a good bike.
I am sure you are aware prices up to £8000+ are not uncommon, and while the law of diminishing returns kick in long before you get to that amount, a £1000 cycle is certainly not so much to make anyone a snob.
Finally in all sincerity, I have an old bianchi that I now only use to ride to the shops and the like and in its time it was a 'good bike' but time moves on and it just doesn't compare to my current giant tcr winter bike, not to mention my giant advanced SL.
N.B. neither are close to £8000.
Anyway, I accept its all a matter of opinion.

I think that Festival has more or less got it in a nutshell. That's as good a definition as I have seen of a good bike, using the current marketplace for new bikes to define it. If you talking old or built up bikes then things get more hazy.

 

[festival]

I think that Festival has more or less got it in a nutshell. That's as good a definition as I have seen of a good bike, using the current marketplace for new bikes to define it. If you talking old or built up bikes then things get more hazy.

Thanks, its a case of semantics (I think that's the right word) but also, if you have never ridden a £1500 bike let alone a £3000 one you may have a gap in your knowledge and unable to appreciate the bigger picture.
E.g. I know the carrera brand very well and if someone asks "I have £350 max, is this a good bike?" I would say, for the money its good and will do a job (depending on the riders needs) but it sits very low in the list of what makes a good bike.
The last bike I raced on some years ago was a trek oclv with mavic krysirium wheels, campag record and finishing kit to match. It was as good as any pro would use, I loved it but after a long lay off, changes in frame design alone have been massive. Recently I found the aluminium giant tcr frame alone made a big difference in performance and comfort regardless of my state of fitness.
But a bikes a bike and I have seen plenty of good bikes let get into right state which is the real shame.
I will say no more as I recognize I am starting to sound like a bore ( or a snob).

 

[Cycleops]

No, I don't think you are sounding boring or snobish. It is always intetesting to try and define these terms we use all the time without really knowing what we mean.