buying a bike (newbie)

MSeries

Martin Wilson wrote:

>
> 2) Buy a secondhand bike which equates to not buying one as many
> people don't want a secondhand bike and wouldn't know how to select a
> good one.
>


Nothing wrong with secondhand per se. Save the plant avoid another
machine being manufactured. Many, many bikes are used little/well cared
for. Bikes don't hold their value very well so secondhand is a real way
of getting a decent bike cheaply. My latest acquisition was £55 from a
bloke on here. An old steel mountain bike, just what I wanted, in
exellent condition, much better than a £55 'new' machine. I am not a
brand snob.There are many helpful folk on here who will help one decide
what to look for in a used or new bike.

Simon Brooke

in message <33u3frF42ofobU1@individual.net>, GwG
('nothiswontworkeither@guess.uk.co') wrote:

> "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
> news:33u2etF457epqU1@individual.net...
>>
>> What's wrong with a second hand bike? Lots of people happily buy
>> second hand cars to get a better quality car at a price they can
>> afford so why be sniffy about buying a second hand bike?
>>
>
> There is nothing wrong with buying a second hand bike, the problem is
> knowing what to look for when buying one.
> A newbie is hardly likely to know what to look for, and could end up
> paying more for a second hand bike than its original cost, just
> because the person selling it has overstated its build quality etc..
> Perhaps there should be a Parkers Guide for bikes, like there is for
> cars.

I've added a 'buying secondhand' article to the AutoFAQ, here:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/urcautofaq/jsp/Wiki?BuyingSecondhand>

Anyone, please feel free to update or amend.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

Simon Brooke

in message <33v70hF455ejcU1@individual.net>, GwG
('nothiswontworkeither@guess.uk.co') wrote:

> I have already been helped a lot from the comments in this group, so
> thanks to you all, and I have printed out Simon Brooke's advice
> earlier in this thread on what to look for when buying second hand, so
> that it is readily available if the Harlem Nimbus turns out to live up
> to the expectations ;-) But just to throw a spanner in the spokes with
> a rhetorical question, will the people who paid £113.00 for the
> Nimbus, (i.e. paid above £100), get a better bike than those who paid
> £59.00 for it. ;-)

No, obviously not. They've just been ripped off worse.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

Peter B

"Martin Wilson" <ebay1@martin66.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:s28et0hmnbs0tmgetquq4a5ouuiiu4v2b6@4ax.com...
>> As an alternative view to many here. I have to say I bought a cheap
> bike (no suspension) for £60 and I've been very happy with it. I
> bought it in order to lose weight and was in the order of 26-27 stone
> when I started. Yes I rode a £60 bike at about 26 stone and lived to
> tell the tale.
> That isn't a recommendation for a cheap bike I might add but there
> certainly not as bad as some people make out here.

You could have hit lucky with the bike.
Good luck with your weight loss endeavours, maybe when you have lost a
certain amount you could reward yourself with a more up-market bike.
Hopefully if you do you'll feel the difference and the added pleasure will
continue to motivate you to ride and keep the weight spectre at bay.
Believe me, although the law of diminishing returns has an effect if you
spend 600 quid on a road bike you'll feel a big difference to your current
machine, if you don't I'd argue you have no soul :-)
Don't ask me to quantify this difference, there are aspects that are obvious
but the difference in the way a better bike feels is subjective but real
nonetheless.
When I first started spending what I thought was serious money for bikes I
had qualms at shelling out the money but was never disappointed, and no, it
wasn't a case of it cost more so it should feel better, the feeling was
genuine, but like I said the law of diminishing returns will come into
effect sooner or later and you reach a point where you're paying for kudos.
But one mans favoured art work sits on a wall doing not-a-lot whereas
another mans transports him with a grin on his face.

Pete

mt99999@hotmail.com

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
> >What would you prefer though, given a choice between a cheap new
bike
> >or no bike at all which is the decision many would make. If their
> >looking at this forum their going to see;
>
> The problem with too many *cheap* bikes is that they are indeed total
crap,
> badly made, badly put together and with brakes that hardly work. In
this case
> cheap does not equal good value - indeed they are a positive waste of
money,
> which when financial resources are limited, is a seriously bad thing.


I'm not disagreeing primarily with Helen as others have made similar
points and counterpoints already in this thread but I think we need to
remember how broad the church of cycling is before we try to define
absolute rules. I commute about 50 miles per week and feel that I need
a reasonably good quality bike to last a decent amount of time and be
reliable. The job I commute to gives me enough money not to have had to
test the limits of budget versus function. My choice of a road bike
(albeit geared up more like an audax or tourer) is a stylistic
indulgence on my part and I could undoubtedly use a cheaper machine.

At the extended family holiday cottage in Ireland there is a strange
collection of bikes in various states of disrepair (biased towards
cheap no-sus mtb stsyle machines). On last year's summer hol on my
rare afternoon ff from child rearing responsibilities I dived into the
boat shed and dug out the best of the bunch (6x3 speed, sis shifters
canti brakes (very worn pads), rack, no 'guards, seriously perished
tyres) and spent a hugely enjoyable half day cycling roughly a 15 mile
r/t mostly on road, partly accross bog trip out to a nearby sea fishing
spot.

The point is, if you want a bike to pop down to the newsagent once or
twice a week and maybe a 10-20 mile pootle on a few summer w/es then a
sub GBP100 bike may be adequate and for many people may not represent
too much of a punt to be worth risking it not suiting their needs or
their needs changing if they get bit by the cycling bug.

I would add decathlon to the list of good value budegt bike sellers if
you are lucky anough to be in reach of one of their stores.

I haven't seen any bad advice yet in this thread, it just needs to be
seen in the context of the authors' own perspectives (mine included of
course)

best wishes
james

Martin Wilson

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:32:30 +0900, James Annan
<still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Wilson wrote:
>
>
>> I think their needs to be a usenet group called 'uk.rec.cycling.cheap'
>> then perhaps this one could be called 'uk.rec.cycling.brandsnobs' and
>> it would all be sorted.
>
>And perhaps there should also be
>uk.rec.cycling.newbie-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder.
>
>James

Lets get one thing straight because your logic isn't working very
well. I bought a cheap bike and I'm a very heavy person who has ridden
it for about 700 miles and its survived. I've ridden bikes most of my
life, I used to be a manager in a tv/video repair shop for many years
and next door was a cycle shop and I was often in there browsing. I've
bought and sold numerous bikes in my time possibly 50 in total many of
which needed repair before selling. I left the scene for quite a few
years but that doesn't mean I forgot everything because of that gap.

I do feel a lot of people are brand snobs here. I can easily prove
that many of the frames of top brands are made in the same factories
using the same techniques as the low cost brands. There are people
here that will look at a bike from the perspective of build materials
and components fitted and that would also be my viewpoint. However
there are also people here that seem to think just putting a certain
sticker on a bike makes it a good bike and a good choice which is not
something I agree with. There are also people here that seem to think
lighter construction also means stronger construction which again is
not something that makes sense a lot of the time.

Although I have a low cost £60 bike for commuting I also have a GT
Timberline FS, Kona Lanai and Giant Revive DX.

I don't believe I have a chip on my shoulder but I would be interested
to read why you think I have. Also I've had about 20 years experience
repairing bikes and cycling them so when do I stop being a newbie? 25
years, 30 years? Maybe I haven't totally stripped enough bikes and
re-assembled them in my time. Probably only about 6 in my time. Maybe
it should be 10 or 20?

I don't know if you realise it but a brand doesn't necessarily mean
much nowadays. Many Toshiba tvs are made in the same factories that
make Bush tvs (Vestel in Turkey), Many Sony products are made by
Samsung or cheap chinese factories. Nike trainers or Levi jeans can
come out of low cost sweat shops that also make unbranded goods.

Here's how it works they spend more money on marketing/advertising to
create demand for branded items which people are willing to pay more
for. The Playstation 2 console is inferior to the Xbox and Gamecube
and many of the games struggle to perform as well as versions on other
consoles yet its no.1 console in the world due to marketing and the
sony/playstation brand.

If specialized make a small number of top quality bikes in the usa
that doesn't mean that the bottom end products that are fully imported
with huge markups are particularly good value. Especially when you
find out that the bottom end models are used to subsidise the
construction of high end models which are loss making.

I do believe there are a lot of brand snobs on this newsgroup but that
doesn't mean I have a chip on my shoulder surely?

For example if you have a owner of a Toshiba tv which is identical to
a Bush tv and there are a couple models which are literally identical
apart from branding and a slightly different colour. Does the Toshiba
owner have a better tv? I've heard people say how terrible Bush are
and what have they got in their living room, the same vestel rebranded
set which is also sold as a Bush model. To them the Toshiba brand
represents superior electronics and design but of course Toshiba never
had any input in the design at all. They couldn't compete at the
bottom end of pricing so only design and build middle to top end sets.
Lets face it we are all brand snobs to a point. I'll openly admit that
given the choice between these two identical sets I would rather have
the Toshiba. Toshiba has a history of electronic innovation and
quality where as Bush is just cheap basically. Who wouldn't prefer the
Toshiba branding?

The same is true of bikes. Most bike firms can't compete near the
bottom end of pricing so they buy in the cheap frames from taiwan or
even whole bikes. They are rebranded and get minor component upgrades
to seperate them from very cheap models. I have a Kona Lanai bike I
bought it as new half price from ebay. It normally sells for £300. The
frame is using very low cost 7005 aluminium no better than bikes that
sell for sub £150. The wheels were rubbish so I changed them. The
better wheels were £9 a pair from ebay.

Looking around my local cycle shops there are very few bikes that seem
to represent a real step up in quality for £300 over some of the non
brands that sell on ebay for about £150.

Some of the giant bikes seem superb for the money though, with lovely
frames and good components at that price point but it has to be said a
lot of the american brand bikes at £300 are using low cost 7005
generic frames.

Martin Wilson

On 04 Jan 2005 11:35:50 GMT, wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>What would you prefer though, given a choice between a cheap new bike
>>or no bike at all which is the decision many would make. If their
>>looking at this forum their going to see;
>
>The problem with too many *cheap* bikes is that they are indeed total crap,
>badly made, badly put together and with brakes that hardly work. In this case
>cheap does not equal good value - indeed they are a positive waste of money,
>which when financial resources are limited, is a seriously bad thing. The ideal
>is to shop around for a good value bike. This takes a bit of time on the part
>of the purchaer. Perhaps it's just me, but before I part with any dosh for
>something largeish I tend to find out about the thing I hope to buy first..
>Then again, I doubt I'm the only one ;-)
>

What is your viewpoint though, are you saying most cheap bikes are bad
or all cheap bikes?

>>1) Buy a more expensive bike which equates to not buying one if you
>>don't have the money.
>
>Well that goes for anything being purchased, not just bikes. You don't have to
>part with loads of cash if you don't want to/can't but it does mean being
>prepared to find out about what's on offer to avoid wasting the old hard-earned
>toonas.
>
>
>>2) Buy a secondhand bike which equates to not buying one as many
>>people don't want a secondhand bike and wouldn't know how to select a
>>good one.
>
>Guffaw. If they are so put off something second-hand, that's their problem. Get
>something halfway decent but second-hand or something new that's crap...
>difficult choice there ;-)
>

Of course secondhand may also be crap or worn out or given the
original owner problems and there is no comeback. Secondhand is not an
easy option and probably needs more research than anything else and is
the most likely to lead to problems. You buy a cheap bike with your
credit card and it doesn't work well you get all your money back. You
buy a rubbish secondhand bike and that money is gone.

>>3) Buy a cheap bike but they won't buy one because their rubbish.
>
>Well it's saved them wasting their money.
>

If its rubbish though it goes back. You don't keep bikes that don't
work. It has to be fit for the purpose sold. What you may have wasted
though is time.

>>Wouldn't it be better to say buy a cheap bike but be warned it won't
>>perform as well as a more expensive model and if your at all
>>interested in cycling upgrade when funds are there.
>
>
>I'd say research what you want a bike for - start reading bike mags to find out
>what's available - then budget & go for the best sepc you can afford, bearing
>in mind cheap doesn't always equal good value.
>
>>I think their needs to be a usenet group called 'uk.rec.cycling.cheap'
>>then perhaps this one could be called 'uk.rec.cycling.brandsnobs' and
>>it would all be sorted.
>
>Or would you prefer to be lied to and told that a £69.99 full-sus jobbie from
>Toys R Us is as good as a more expensive but better put together bike, with
>examples given or told the truth that in life you don't get something for
>nothing? You don't have to spend thousands to get a decent bike, but you won't
>get a decent one for seventy squid from the supermarket either.
>

I'm not recommending such bikes but you see kids out and about and
enjoying such bikes. Theres a difference between saying something is
not worth considering and saying something won't perform as well as a
more expensive model.

If someone asks your advice on buying a car do you automatically say
mercedes and if they then say can't afford it do you suggest a
secondhand mercedes? Maybe they would be happy with less performance,
less comfort as long as they get a nice shiny new car.

>Cheers, helen s
>
>
>
>--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
>to get correct one remove fame & fortune
>h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>
>--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
>
>

Martin Wilson

On 04 Jan 2005 11:35:50 GMT, wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>What would you prefer though, given a choice between a cheap new bike
>>or no bike at all which is the decision many would make. If their
>>looking at this forum their going to see;
>
>The problem with too many *cheap* bikes is that they are indeed total crap,
>badly made, badly put together and with brakes that hardly work. In this case
>cheap does not equal good value - indeed they are a positive waste of money,
>which when financial resources are limited, is a seriously bad thing. The ideal
>is to shop around for a good value bike. This takes a bit of time on the part
>of the purchaer. Perhaps it's just me, but before I part with any dosh for
>something largeish I tend to find out about the thing I hope to buy first..
>Then again, I doubt I'm the only one ;-)
>

What is your viewpoint though, are you saying most cheap bikes are bad
or all cheap bikes?

>>1) Buy a more expensive bike which equates to not buying one if you
>>don't have the money.
>
>Well that goes for anything being purchased, not just bikes. You don't have to
>part with loads of cash if you don't want to/can't but it does mean being
>prepared to find out about what's on offer to avoid wasting the old hard-earned
>toonas.
>
>
>>2) Buy a secondhand bike which equates to not buying one as many
>>people don't want a secondhand bike and wouldn't know how to select a
>>good one.
>
>Guffaw. If they are so put off something second-hand, that's their problem. Get
>something halfway decent but second-hand or something new that's crap...
>difficult choice there ;-)
>

Of course secondhand may also be crap or worn out or given the
original owner problems and there is no comeback. Secondhand is not an
easy option and probably needs more research than anything else and is
the most likely to lead to problems. You buy a cheap bike with your
credit card and it doesn't work well you get all your money back. You
buy a rubbish secondhand bike and that money is gone.

>>3) Buy a cheap bike but they won't buy one because their rubbish.
>
>Well it's saved them wasting their money.
>

If its rubbish though it goes back. You don't keep bikes that don't
work. It has to be fit for the purpose sold. What you may have wasted
though is time.

>>Wouldn't it be better to say buy a cheap bike but be warned it won't
>>perform as well as a more expensive model and if your at all
>>interested in cycling upgrade when funds are there.
>
>
>I'd say research what you want a bike for - start reading bike mags to find out
>what's available - then budget & go for the best sepc you can afford, bearing
>in mind cheap doesn't always equal good value.
>
>>I think their needs to be a usenet group called 'uk.rec.cycling.cheap'
>>then perhaps this one could be called 'uk.rec.cycling.brandsnobs' and
>>it would all be sorted.
>
>Or would you prefer to be lied to and told that a £69.99 full-sus jobbie from
>Toys R Us is as good as a more expensive but better put together bike, with
>examples given or told the truth that in life you don't get something for
>nothing? You don't have to spend thousands to get a decent bike, but you won't
>get a decent one for seventy squid from the supermarket either.
>

I'm not recommending such bikes but you see kids out and about and
enjoying such bikes. Theres a difference between saying something is
not worth considering and saying something won't perform as well as a
more expensive model.

If someone asks your advice on buying a car do you automatically say
mercedes and if they then say can't afford it do you suggest a
secondhand mercedes? Maybe they would be happy with less performance,
less comfort as long as they get a nice shiny new car.

>Cheers, helen s
>
>
>
>--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
>to get correct one remove fame & fortune
>h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>
>--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
>
>

Martin Wilson

>Nothing wrong with secondhand per se. Save the plant avoid another
>machine being manufactured. Many, many bikes are used little/well cared
>for. Bikes don't hold their value very well so secondhand is a real way
>of getting a decent bike cheaply. My latest acquisition was £55 from a
>bloke on here. An old steel mountain bike, just what I wanted, in
>exellent condition, much better than a £55 'new' machine. I am not a
>brand snob.There are many helpful folk on here who will help one decide
>what to look for in a used or new bike.

How easy would it be for someone to repeat your purchase? I fancy a
nice Cannondale mountain bike for £150 in excellent hardly used
condition where do I find it?

Can there really be that many lightly used top end bikes going cheap?
Many people would argue here that a top quality branded bike is
exactly the type of bike that would be used. I mean how many people
are going to buy a £400 bike lets say, try it, decide they don't
actually like it and then sell it on at a huge loss. I personally
would say the vast majority would have had a fair bit of use to a
massive amount of use. This is where it gets tricky for the buyer
trying to work out which one it is.

Martin Wilson

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:56:31 +0100, "Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>
>"Martin Wilson" <ebay1@martin66.screaming.net> wrote in message
>news:s28et0hmnbs0tmgetquq4a5ouuiiu4v2b6@4ax.com...
>>> As an alternative view to many here. I have to say I bought a cheap
>> bike (no suspension) for £60 and I've been very happy with it. I
>> bought it in order to lose weight and was in the order of 26-27 stone
>> when I started. Yes I rode a £60 bike at about 26 stone and lived to
>> tell the tale.
>> That isn't a recommendation for a cheap bike I might add but there
>> certainly not as bad as some people make out here.
>
>You could have hit lucky with the bike.
>Good luck with your weight loss endeavours, maybe when you have lost a
>certain amount you could reward yourself with a more up-market bike.
>Hopefully if you do you'll feel the difference and the added pleasure will
>continue to motivate you to ride and keep the weight spectre at bay.
>Believe me, although the law of diminishing returns has an effect if you
>spend 600 quid on a road bike you'll feel a big difference to your current
>machine, if you don't I'd argue you have no soul :-)
>Don't ask me to quantify this difference, there are aspects that are obvious
>but the difference in the way a better bike feels is subjective but real
>nonetheless.
>When I first started spending what I thought was serious money for bikes I
>had qualms at shelling out the money but was never disappointed, and no, it
>wasn't a case of it cost more so it should feel better, the feeling was
>genuine, but like I said the law of diminishing returns will come into
>effect sooner or later and you reach a point where you're paying for kudos.
>But one mans favoured art work sits on a wall doing not-a-lot whereas
>another mans transports him with a grin on his face.
>
>Pete
>
I do have better bikes, A kona Lanai (which I have ridden a tiny bit),
A Giant Revive DX and a GT Timberline FS. The Timbeline is being
restored though. Unfortunately the Kona has an absolute weight limit
of 300lbs and I'm only just under that so I'm being very careful with
it. The Revive is 19 stone maximum so still got a way to go.I'm
currently about 20.4 stone I think approx.

I'm not arguing against more expensive bikes I'm just making the point
that some cheap bikes are usable and enjoyable. A cheap bike isn't all
pain and suffering. At 7.00am when I finish my nightshift I'm actually
looking forward to getting on my cheap bike and riding home.

The failure rate of 7005 aluminium frames is far higher than low cost
high tensile steel frames. This is why even the cheapest bikes often
have long guarantees of 15 years or 25 years for steel frames but only
1 year for aluminium. I know people here disagree but I honestly
believe a high tensile steel frame is going to be a strong frame and
stronger than most low cost aluminium frames. I'm not saying its the
steel itself mind you it may be its easier to do good consistant
welds.

To be honest though I am thinking when I have lost more weight about a
Carrera Subway 8 to replace my £60 mountain bike. The amount of mud
and crap I have to cycle through in the wet etc means I'm often
spending my time cleaning the chain/derailleur etc. However for that
to be beneficial I think I'd also need some sort of chain guard to
enclose the chain. Sadly I still need to lose a fair bit more weight
though before thats a realistic option. For one thing its got a pretty
low cost generic 7005 frame and with only 8 gears I probably need to
be a bit better at going up hills before I could manage the bike. Also
for a fairly thin 7005 frame I'd probably want to be no more than
about 16-17 stone.

Martin Wilson

>
>hi martin ... congrats on your weight loss - im around the 25 mark and
>just starting out on my lose it plan for the year ... have sorted myself
>out with trainers, sports gear and swimming shorts ... still have my
>bike i bought from halfords for about 150 18 months ago so will be going
>out on that once ive several weeks walking, swimming, gym etc under my
>belt (im really waiting for the weather to clear up before i get on the
>bike, was always a fair weather biker!)
>
>i stopeed regular cycling due to regular bouts of gout mainly in my
>ankles although on the meds now so hoping that will stay the hell away
> !!
>
>i used my halfords special for several hundred miles and despite it
>being heavier and not as refined as the more expensive bikes it
>certainly held out on me well enough ... only needs a dusting, a bit of
>oil and tyres pumped before I can use it again - looking forward to it.

Best of luck mate. One thing I found when losing weight is it does get
harder because the weight you used to carry is no longer consuming the
calories. When I was 27 stone I was effectively carrying 6.6 stone
more than I am today. That 6.6 stone was like a small person siting on
my shoulders all day everyday. Well now that small person has
disappeared but I still have the other small seven stone person to get
rid of before I'm down to my ideal weight of 13.5 stone.

Its a long journey and I hope we can both go the distance.

JLB

Martin Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:32:30 +0900, James Annan
> <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Martin Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>I think their needs to be a usenet group called 'uk.rec.cycling.cheap'
>>>then perhaps this one could be called 'uk.rec.cycling.brandsnobs' and
>>>it would all be sorted.
>>
>>And perhaps there should also be
>>uk.rec.cycling.newbie-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder.
>>
[snip]
> I do feel a lot of people are brand snobs here. I can easily prove
> that many of the frames of top brands are made in the same factories
> using the same techniques as the low cost brands. There are people
> here that will look at a bike from the perspective of build materials
> and components fitted and that would also be my viewpoint. However
> there are also people here that seem to think just putting a certain
> sticker on a bike makes it a good bike and a good choice which is not
> something I agree with. There are also people here that seem to think
> lighter construction also means stronger construction which again is
> not something that makes sense a lot of the time.
[snip]
> I don't believe I have a chip on my shoulder but I would be interested
> to read why you think I have. Also I've had about 20 years experience
> repairing bikes and cycling them so when do I stop being a newbie?
[very big snip ]

Since you ask, I'll explain why I agree you have a chip on your
shoulder. For a start, consider the lengths you went to in
self-justification there (including the large amount that I snipped). It
brings to mind the old line about protesting too much. Next, look at
your assertions that "a lot of people are brand snobs here", "people
here that seem to think just putting a certain sticker on a bike makes
it a good bike and a good choice" and "people here that seem to think
lighter construction also means stronger construction". All those
interpretations require a considerable exercise in imagination on your
part compared to the actual messages that were posted; the fact your
imagination carried you in a particular direction shows a large degree
of prejudice. I'd call that a chip on your shoulder.

You don't seem to be a newbie to cycling, but I'd read that remark as a
comment on your relatively recent manifestration in urc.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Jon Senior

Martin Wilson wrote:
> I do feel a lot of people are brand snobs here. I can easily prove
> that many of the frames of top brands are made in the same factories
> using the same techniques as the low cost brands. There are people
> here that will look at a bike from the perspective of build materials
> and components fitted and that would also be my viewpoint. However
> there are also people here that seem to think just putting a certain
> sticker on a bike makes it a good bike and a good choice which is not
> something I agree with. There are also people here that seem to think
> lighter construction also means stronger construction which again is
> not something that makes sense a lot of the time.

Not brand snobs so much as pro-quality. Yes it's true that a lot of the
frames come out of the same factories, but there may still be
differences. I don't know how the system works, but I'd be surprised if
a big-name brand didn't impose some kind of quality control (What
happens to the rejected frames?).

Secondly; The components fitted do make a difference, and while
upgrading is possible, it's cheaper (in the long run) to have the better
components fitted by the manufacturer who can buy them at a lower cost
than you.

Thirdly; If you buy a bike from a supermarket, you have to accept that
it may not be well set up, and that the staff may well have little or no
knowledge if something goes wrong. While many LBSs are not perfect, most
have at least one member of staff who can correctly set up your brakes.

Fourthly; Heavy != strong. Light != weak. I build a very heavy frame
which consequently broke twice and while now (probably) strong is even
heavier. The failures were due to construction quality (low) and poor
design.

Fifthly; I don't recall anyone here offering any genuine brand snobbery.
There is good support for Cannondale, but they don't fit your
description of budget bike construction. It's not an allegiance to a
brand so much as a dislike of someone who doesn't know their stuff (e.g.
supermarket) selling you a product which at worst could be dangerous,
and at best may well put you off cycling (boingy, oversize, thickwalled
steel frame).

> Lets face it we are all brand snobs to a point. I'll openly admit that
> given the choice between these two identical sets I would rather have
> the Toshiba. Toshiba has a history of electronic innovation and
> quality where as Bush is just cheap basically. Who wouldn't prefer the
> Toshiba branding?

Hang on. You criticise us (Royal "us"?) for brand snobbery, then openly
admit that you'd pay more for a product that you know to be identical to
a cheaper one because of the badge on the front. Why on earth would you
do that?

Jon

Jon Senior

Martin Wilson wrote:
> The failure rate of 7005 aluminium frames is far higher than low cost
> high tensile steel frames. This is why even the cheapest bikes often
> have long guarantees of 15 years or 25 years for steel frames but only
> 1 year for aluminium. I know people here disagree but I honestly
> believe a high tensile steel frame is going to be a strong frame and
> stronger than most low cost aluminium frames. I'm not saying its the
> steel itself mind you it may be its easier to do good consistant
> welds.

But it's nothing more than a belief. A badly made cast iron frame will
still fail. The cheapest bikes offer guarantees that will only rarely be
taken up in the event of failure since the costs are so low. It's a risk
for the manufacturers but it pays off. I know of few people who have
actually cracked frames. I'm one, but I made them and expected it. Guy
suffered a few from a design flaw IIRC. I've heard a couple of stories
about high-end Bianchis failing, but they're only guaranteed for one
race season. Even my mate hasn't managed to break his Alu frame despite
at least three accidents, one of which pulled the steerer tube out of
his carbon fibre forks.

Jon