What to look for when inspecting a bike/How much is this bike worth?

[swee'pea99]

for a first bike for someone new to cycling with no knowledge or skills of bike maintenance /repair and looking for a cheap reliable bike to go touring on you are all suggesting this 30 year old bike with 30 year old componants would be a good solution for him ?
you must be out of your tiny minds.

Now that has been said before....and more than once. But as for the rest, yes, absolutely. It would be an excellent solution. (Tho' the caveats in the previous post are all sensible - I would indeed go along and have a look and check all those things. But my guess is it would pass any such MOT with flying colours.)

 

[swee'pea99]

Oh, and don't worry about the 27" wheels - if and when you need to, just replace them with 700s, and adjust your brakes a bit.

 

[PpPete]

for a first bike for someone new to cycling with no knowledge or skills of bike maintenance /repair and looking for a cheap reliable bike to go touring on you are all suggesting this 30 year old bike with 30 year old componants would be a good solution for him ?
you must be out of your tiny minds.

Components of that vintage may not be great but are often still in working order. It's the more recent low-end components that are made of cheese and are to be avoided 2nd hand - even if only a few months old.

 

[jimboalee]

Components of that vintage may not be great but are often still in working order. It's the more recent low-end components that are made of cheese and are to be avoided 2nd hand - even if only a few months old.

A man inside his copiuos large mind.

 

[Tynan]

you lot have a whip round and buy the bloody thing so we can all find out what it's like

I need to know now

 

[simon_brooke]

If £150 is all you have, I think you're better off buying a late 80s/early 90s mountain bike. You could get a good one for that.
I recently sold my slightly more modern Galaxy for £300, and that was a bargain, as cheap as I'd buy one for unless you're lucky and find one being offered for less than it's worth.

Frankly, bollocks. Old mountain bikes - that old - were quite amazingly heavy (except for very nice ones like Cannondales). They're also not great bikes for long distance work because of limited hand positions, which lead to wrist stress.

But as for the stuff about all the wheels and components being knackered, absolute crap. There's no reason to believe they aren't in fine nick. Dawes Galaxy was a high-end bike from a very good maker, and my guess would be that all the components are good for thousands more miles.

Absolutely agree.

Frankly the only concern I'd have is the limited availability of 27" tyres - and even there, you can get touring tyres reasonably easily (racing tyres are much harder to find).

If you're on a limited budget, this is likely to be a very good bike for your money.

 

[chris667]

Frankly, bollocks. Old mountain bikes - that old - were quite amazingly heavy (except for very nice ones like Cannondales). They're also not great bikes for long distance work because of limited hand positions, which lead to wrist stress.

You are obviously not very knowledgeable about old mountain bikes. My 1993 Dynatech Diabolo weighs 23lbs. My GT Karakoram, which is my favourite mountain bike (which I bought for £95, with full Deore DX components in excellent condition) weighs about 28lbs. I also have a 1989 Saracen that weighs 27lbs. Quality parts with wide range gears and much more relaxed angles than modern mountain bikes make for an excellent touring bike with a few cheap modifications. In fact, I bought the Karakoram from near Cambridge and rode it home to near Reading over a week, and I can tell you it was great.
Mountain bike technology revolutionised touring bikes.

I honestly don't believe size is an issue. I'm 6'2"; back in the seventies I used to ride a 26" frame, which fit me fine (I've done at least a hundred thousand miles on 26" frame bikes). These days we tend to ride with a lot of exposed seat post and my bikes are 24", but thirty years ago people rode bigger frames with less exposed seatpost. So a 23.5" 1970s bike is probably about right for someone who's 5'10"

How you can give sizing advice without looking at someone is beyond me.

Absolutely agree.

Frankly the only concern I'd have is the limited availability of 27" tyres - and even there, you can get touring tyres reasonably easily (racing tyres are much harder to find).

If you're on a limited budget, this is likely to be a very good bike for your money.

It's like I said, it might be OK. But it's less likely to be ok than something more modern, and for that reason, it's not a bargain.
You cannot possibly say a secondhand bike is good without seeing it in the flesh. You can say its design is good, or as a model it's generally well built, but condition can change a bike from excellent to unrideable.

 

[Arch]

for a first bike for someone new to cycling with no knowledge or skills of bike maintenance /repair and looking for a cheap reliable bike to go touring on you are all suggesting this 30 year old bike with 30 year old componants would be a good solution for him ?
you must be out of your tiny minds.

Funny, that was more or less what I did when I got my Galaxy at a cheap auction 10 years ago, and stripped it down and rebuilt it, and learnt pretty much everything I know about how bikes work.

Then I took it to Norfolk on my first tour, and when I get it rebuilt after powdercoating, I'll be looking to use it to go round Europe on in a couple of years when I've saved up.

My main concern would be the size, not the age.

 

[peanut]

Funny, that was more or less what I did when I got my Galaxy at a cheap auction 10 years ago, and stripped it down and rebuilt it, and learnt pretty much everything I know about how bikes work.

Then I took it to Norfolk on my first tour, and when I get it rebuilt after powdercoating, I'll be looking to use it to go round Europe on in a couple of years when I've saved up.

My main concern would be the size, not the age.

so given the op's question you would recommend the bike on the basis that you managed to restore your bike ?

I rather get the impression that the OP wants a reliable ready-to-go bike for touring not a restoration project although as you say its a wonderful opportunity to learn bike maintenance.

When there is so many alternatives I cannot understand why anyone would recommend this particualr bike.

However everyone is entitled to their opinion and its not terribly helpful for the OP for us to start an argument about it is it

 

[swee'pea99]

so given the op's question you would recommend the bike on the basis that you managed to restore your bike ?

I rather get the impression that the OP wants a reliable ready-to-go bike for touring not a restoration project although as you say its a wonderful opportunity to learn bike maintenance.

When there is so many alternatives I cannot understand why anyone would recommend this particualr bike.

However everyone is entitled to their opinion and its not terribly helpful for the OP for us to start an argument about it is it

Because it's almost certainly a reliable ready-to-go bike for touring, and a bloody good one at that.

 

[Arch]

so given the op's question you would recommend the bike on the basis that you managed to restore your bike ?

I rather get the impression that the OP wants a reliable ready-to-go bike for touring not a restoration project although as you say its a wonderful opportunity to learn bike maintenance.

My Galaxy, when I bought it, need new tyres and tubes, but was otherwise fine. I chose to strip it to learn about it and to change the paint colour. I could have set off on tour as it was, with a bit of a lube and replacement tyres and tubes - in fact, I could probably have got away with just new tubes.

 

[peanut]

don't know why you are still bothering to post here.

The original poster hasn't posted back here since his first post due to all the argument and insults as per usual.

 

[Arch]

don't know why you are still bothering to post here.

The original poster hasn't posted back here since his first post due to all the argument and insults as per usual.

And who started the arguments? Anyway, he may well be reading without posting.

 

[peanut]

And who started the arguments?

Porky Pete actually

 

[Davidc]

Sounds a reasonable deal to me.

I'm 5' 10" and it would be too big for me but i've got short legs for the height - best thing to do is go and try it if its nearby.

The bike is probably early 80s with a 6 speed block. At the time Dawes weren't the best off the shelf bike (at the risk of mass disagreemnt imo that was Holdsworth, by a country mile) but they were good, fairly high end, bikes. The frame should be in good nick (barring any accidents in the past) and a small amount of non penetrating rust shouldn't affect it. treat it if you buy it.

I've done work on bikes of that age (since they were young!) and would just comment:

Original spec components will be a problem, and modification for current ones, though fairly easy, is time consuming and fiddly.

The wheels won't last forever, and you may want to fit current ones. The rear dropouts will need widening, and that's the nastiest job I've ever done on an older bike. There are several descriptions on this forum.

If the freewheel block fails you may find replacing it difficult - again you could be into new wheels.

I have toured France several times, on bikes made in 1967 onwards, and down to 5 gears. Provided you don't mind a wider cadence range than is now usual (ever ridden a single speed?) and the gear range is wide enough then you should be OK with the 12 speed.

The last time I was in France there were still plenty of bike shops, and past experience has been that they keep all sorts of stuff of all sorts of ages. Nonetheless it would concern me being on a bike that old.