What are the main differences between cheap bikes and proper bikes?

[Ihatehills]

Hi
I've recently started cycling in an effort to improve my general fitness, and I've rediscovered a passion for it, I always loved cycling as a kid and I used to commute before I learned to drive.
The reason for my question is because I've never owned a decent bike
I currently own a halfords Apollo ( Vortice, I think) that cost 120 quid about six years ago, and to be honest I'm not particularly disappointed with it, having had nothing to compare it to. Everything works ok, I had to do a bit of fiddling to get the gears to index correctly but I have achieved that.
This bike has done quite a few miles now and I definatrly feel that I've had my money's worth from it but thr chainrings and such are started to look not great.
I've been riding between 50 and 60 miles a week and would like to keep this up but probably am never going to be doing 100 mile trips

I'm just really after advice on how much I really need to spend to get something reasonable and what the benefits will be over my current bike
All advice appreciated.

 

[Saluki]

I found the chief difference to be weight and quality.
I had an Apollo XC26 bike. In my defence, it was free and I probably overpaid at that.
It weight 40+lbs, the components were cheap and I was forever fettling it. In the 2 years I tried to get on with it, I had the wheels trued 3 times, 2 new cassettes, 3 chains, new gear shifters and other little bits and bobs here and there. It was horrible to ride, even with road tyres on it. It graunched and cluncked, and was just nasty. That's being generous to the bloody thing. The best bit is I got £40 for it when I sold it. Oh, seat was quite comfy.

Enter my Giant Defy 2.
I quadrupled the mileage that I was doing and had 1 new cassette and 1 new chain. 1 new brake cable and a set of blocks. I rode it and rode it and rode it. It weight about 11kg or so.
The quality of the Giant was 20 times the quality of the Apollo - which I believe was made from Pig Iron. The engineering was better, the drive train was better, the wheels were better quality, it rolled smoothly, it went round corners without bucking or weaving about and generally a pleasure to ride.

Budget bikes are made to a budget, with cheap components so that the manufactures and retailers can make a profit. Better bikes, still make a profit for the manufacturers and retailers but they are better bikes. The old adage that you get what you pay for is very true when it comes to bikes.
I let a friend have a go on Hubsters Whyte Kings Cross CX bike as he said that he only ever has cheap bikes because bikes don't last nowadays. Friend now has a Whyte of his own as he was blown away with the difference in the ride, the feel and the weight.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Just plus 1 really. Pay a bit more and you'll get something lighter and with better quality parts so they will keep true longer and shouldn't wear out as quick.

Best bet is to do a bit of research, as there is a point where the aim of the bike is much more about weight than anything else and durability is likely to suffer. Find the part of the component range that works for you (Shimano, I'd suggest 105 or possibly a drop down a level to Tiagra) and then look at the bikes specced with that kit. Ride some stuff and see what you like.

I'd imagine you could get something you're really happy with (after the Apollo) in the £500 - £1000 range depending on what kit you want on it. There's a lot at the £1000 price point because it's the top end of Cycle to Work, but that doesn't mean a £500 bike is going to be terrible. I don't know, but I'd have thought you'd want to be very picky if you were looking in the £250-£500 range, although Decathlon would probably have you covered with something that was adequate.

 

[xxDarkRiderxx]

Budget bikes are made to a budget, with cheap components so that the manufactures and retailers can make a profit. Better bikes, still make a profit for the manufacturers and retailers but they are better bikes. The old adage that you get what you pay for is very true when it comes to bikes.

Totally agree with @Saluki. you will find that the components are not very good and the frames tend to be very heavy, and wheels tend to be substandard. On the other hand if your current steed is performing to your satisfation then renewing the cassette and chain will extend the life of the bike even further. I've had quite a few bikes in my time and most of them which were under £500 were not that good.

Cycling can be an expensive hobby. What type of cycling are you doing? Leisure commuting sportives or club cycling? I have a different bike for all of these activities and the wife is not happy.

 

[mustang1]

^what they said.

Especially @Saluki 's nice write up.

 

[KneesUp]

I found the chief difference to be weight and quality.
I had an Apollo XC26 bike ... It weight 40+lbs, the components were cheap and I was forever fettling it. In the 2 years I tried to get on with it, I had the wheels trued 3 times, 2 new cassettes, 3 chains,

I can understand the first cassette and chains being low quality and wearing out, but presumably you replaced them with the same quality and therefore they would have worn out on any other bike too - just to be fair to cheap bikes

 

[jonny jeez]

I found the chief difference to be weight and quality.
I had an Apollo XC26 bike. In my defence, it was free and I probably overpaid at that.
It weight 40+lbs, the components were cheap and I was forever fettling it. In the 2 years I tried to get on with it, I had the wheels trued 3 times, 2 new cassettes, 3 chains, new gear shifters and other little bits and bobs here and there. It was horrible to ride, even with road tyres on it. It graunched and cluncked, and was just nasty. That's being generous to the bloody thing. The best bit is I got £40 for it when I sold it. Oh, seat was quite comfy.

Enter my Giant Defy 2.
I quadrupled the mileage that I was doing and had 1 new cassette and 1 new chain. 1 new brake cable and a set of blocks. I rode it and rode it and rode it. It weight about 11kg or so.
The quality of the Giant was 20 times the quality of the Apollo - which I believe was made from Pig Iron. The engineering was better, the drive train was better, the wheels were better quality, it rolled smoothly, it went round corners without bucking or weaving about and generally a pleasure to ride.

Budget bikes are made to a budget, with cheap components so that the manufactures and retailers can make a profit. Better bikes, still make a profit for the manufacturers and retailers but they are better bikes. The old adage that you get what you pay for is very true when it comes to bikes.
I let a friend have a go on Hubsters Whyte Kings Cross CX bike as he said that he only ever has cheap bikes because bikes don't last nowadays. Friend now has a Whyte of his own as he was blown away with the difference in the ride, the feel and the weight.

Very true. The next question is what's the benifit between mid level (Defys and the like...circa £1-1500 bikes) and a £3-5k offering.

Now that's where it gets gets tricky to justify to my wife self.

 

[Saluki]

I can understand the first cassette and chains being low quality and wearing out, but presumably you replaced them with the same quality and therefore they would have worn out on any other bike too - just to be fair to cheap bikes

I didn't know any better back then really. I got my LBS to sort it out and they must have used the same sort of quality stuff.

 

[MichaelW2]

Bicycle Shaped Objects usually suffer from really bad alignment of everything: head-tube not vertical, fork arms splayed to one side, dropouts pointing in different directions.
They all have to pass a strength test, but often use far too much metal in the wrong place.
Component quality is one of their lesser evils.

There is an optimum point of the price performance curve, usually about £6-800.
Below this, a little extra cash buys a lot more bike.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Just to add a note of caution, there is cheap and pretty nasty: Asda, Argos etc and surprisingly good value for their quite low price e.g.Triban 3.

 

[Garry A]

I had a Halfords hybrid for years and thought it was great, then I bought a Giant hybrid. Night and day. My Halfords bike was a bucket of sh**e campared to the Giant which was a delight to ride. The pedal fell off the Halfords bike while cycling it home from the shop

 

[Ihatehills]

Thanks for your input everyone
It's funny cos I now feel like I should defend my bike lol, it's never let me down even when I had a puncture and nothing to repair it with it held enough air to keep pumping it up at 15 min intervals until I got home and it's not THAT heavy as it is an aluminium frame.
But in all seriousness from what you've said it probably is a bike shaped pile of and I will pluck up some courage and head down to my LBS and see what they have. At least I have an idea about the sort of price bracket I should be looking at

 

[Chris S]

BSOs aren't complete rubbish - the brakes were really good on one that I briefly owned.
If it had one gear that worked instead of 10 that didn't it would have been a useable bike.

 

[tyred]

BSOs can be variable really. Some can be perfectly serviceable with a bit of sympathetic TLC. Some might have really shoddy gear shifters or whatever but that can be sorted cheaply if you look around the dump and rob parts from something else.

Others are just a collection of mis-aligned tubes and will never ride properly no matter what.

 

[MichaelW2]

There is a difference between a BSO and a cheap, rideable bike.
Decathlon entry level all seem pretty reasonable. Their Rockrider rigid MTB won a Gadget Show trial against some true BSOs , with suspension and everything
BSO's hardly ever use aluminium frames, usually hi-ten steel often masquerading as aluminium fat-tubes.