buying a bike (newbie)

Peter B

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:1105146144.12067.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
> 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.

A friends high end Marin alu hard tail cracked where the seat post enters,
the frame was replaced swiftly and without fuss.
More recently another friends Specialized (which he bought second hand)
developed a crack on the swing arm, this was sorted without dispute also.
These were bikes that were used to their design limits off road.
I like to think the reputable companies are only too keen to honour their
warrantys (as they should).

Pete

Peter B

"Martin Wilson" <martin.w6@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cu5ut05ukk0hcr2padqj9qm20jet18b7l5@4ax.com...

Re. picking up a bargain quality 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?

I don't believe it's easy, it's a matter of luck.
I bought a quality s/h road bike once, the original owner bought it brand
new in the autumn at a knock down sale price, hardly rode it and by late
winter was selling it to fund a motorbike purchase. I effectively paid 50%
of the sticker price it would have had in the shop 6 months prior.
Over the years I have seen and heard of a couple of real bargains but not of
a type I wanted at that time or if I wanted it couldn't afford it.
When I once did set out to buy a good bike second hand I got fed up wasting
time and petrol to look at what quite frankly was junk (or maybe I just
expected too much).
My policy now is to shop around for year end specials; nice, shiny,
untouched with statutary and manufacturers guarantees, then go and ride.

Pete

Peter B

"Martin Wilson" <martin.w6@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:et4ut0h1ntclsvts99hrs25tu9ns0ljqis@4ax.com...
> 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 need to be a lot better informed to buy a second hand bike than a new
one.
Not only must you be able to appreciate the difference in quality between
the loud, heavy crap and better stuff but also the difference in a reputable
manufacturers range, where they may start with bikes costing £300 and range
up to near £3000.
Then you must be able to make a mechanical assessment.
At least with a new bike you can generally apply the rule of thumb that,
with few exceptions, the more you pay the better it is and of course you
have consumer protection.

Pete

Peter B

"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:349rruF48d8iqU1@individual.net...
> Peter B wrote:
> >
> >
> > You need to be a lot better informed to buy a second hand bike than a
new
> > one.
> > Then you must be able to make a mechanical assessment.
> >
>
> Sadly the same is true of most cheap new bikes. Rarely have I seen one
> properly set up. The difference is on a second hand one you might
> expect that, on a new one people ride them in blissful ignorance with
> dangerous faults on them thinking they're new so they must be OK.

Yes I agree. For amusement I checked some out in M*kro once, no comment!
In this age of nannyism it seems odd that reputable businesses can sell a
safety critical device like a bicycle the way they do, it seems a different
standard applies between, say, electrical goods which must be CE and
Kitemarked and a bicycle sold in a box to be set up by "Dad" who may be
perfectly clueless. We no longer expect, nor trust, people to fit a 13amp
plug but consider it acceptable to sell a road going machine that a novice
could exceed 30mph on with the right descent.

Pete

Martin Wilson

>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?).
>

As far as I can tell from reading information from some of the
manufacturer sites they have runs/batches of certain frames. I.e.
tuesday morning would be lets say a Specilized 18" frame, tuesday
afternoon might be the 20" version. Wednesday morning might be an
apollo frame. The specialized frame may simply be that a frame order
where as apollo it might be a contract for a 80% assembled complete
bike. Companies like abeni seem to have options ranging from just the
main frame to a completely assembled bike. They also do bike kits with
no assembly at all (I quite like the idea of that one). There is also
an option for standard design frames which is their cheapest option.
They'll do a large run of an identical frame which they sell at low
cost unpainted or painted. This option is for small bike builders it
seems as they are available in smaller quantities like 100s instead of
1000s. These look to be the frames that companies like Edinburgh
cycles or merlin use.

There is a pecking order of frame builders in taiwan though. Giant
seem to be the highest rated or at least one of the highest rated. A
step down from them seems to be Merida (not sure I've got that name
right). Nearer the bottom end is Abeni and Idealbike. None of the
frames are bad though.


>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.
>

I'm not knocking good components, my point is there are a lot of £300
bikes that really don't have particularly good components fitted where
as others do for the same money. I'm only questioning the consistency
of brands to produce good value models not buying bikes with good
components. You can get basic tourney gearing on bikes upto £400.

>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.
>

I don't think I've ever seen a good deal on a bike at a supermarket
anyway and I've never recommended them. Theres no reason to buy a bike
from a supermarket because the same cheap bikes can be bought cheaper
elsewhere as far as I can tell. Halfords tend to be as cheap if not
cheaper for the same type of bikes with just the branding changing.


>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.
>

I'm certainly not saying heavy=strong but as a general rule its
obviously better than light=strong. Its just one of those things where
the variables are enormous. However I do think that when a bike is
trying to be as light as possible for performance reasons with
aluminium replacing steel, tube thickness thinning down and triple
butting in the frame on fairly standard size tubeing , spoke numbers
cut down etc you are not going to have a stronger bike a lot of the
time.

>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).
>

I'm a big fan of Cannondale myself. I just seem to see some merit in
almost all cycles. Its rare that I actually fully dislike a bike.


>> 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

No I wouldn't pay more for the Toshiba obviously but given the choice
of the Toshiba for the same money as the Bush I would definitely want
the Toshiba. I was just making the point we are all brand snobs to a
point.

Martin Wilson

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:08:13 +0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:

>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.

The point is they offer a generous guarantee on the steel frame, much
longer than they have to but stick to the bare legal minimum for
aluminium. Whats this reference to 'cast iron' though is that some
sort of dig against steel frames again? ;-)

Tony Raven

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.
>

Data? People used to say that about high end aluminium frames as well
until EFBe fatique tested a whole range and all of the steel ones failed
while many of the aluminium ones survived.


Tony

Tony Raven

Peter B wrote:
>
>
> You need to be a lot better informed to buy a second hand bike than a new
> one.
> Not only must you be able to appreciate the difference in quality between
> the loud, heavy crap and better stuff but also the difference in a reputable
> manufacturers range, where they may start with bikes costing £300 and range
> up to near £3000.
> Then you must be able to make a mechanical assessment.
>

Sadly the same is true of most cheap new bikes. Rarely have I seen one
properly set up. The difference is on a second hand one you might
expect that, on a new one people ride them in blissful ignorance with
dangerous faults on them thinking they're new so they must be OK.

Tony

Peter B

Peter said re. buying second hand:
>Then you must be able to make a mechanical assessment.

And Tony responded:

> > Sadly the same is true of most cheap new bikes. Rarely have I seen one
> > properly set up. The difference is on a second hand one you might
> > expect that, on a new one people ride them in blissful ignorance with
> > dangerous faults on them thinking they're new so they must be OK.

To which Peter replied:
> Yes I agree. <snipped the rest where he went on about safety etc>

I was originally thinking about having to make the mechanical assessment for
valuation reasons but the safety issue is more important.

Pete

Simon Brooke

in message <sdvtt0dtgsal3cm2ldnkd1m1gt7ar0qd08@4ax.com>, Martin Wilson
('martin.w6@ukonline.co.uk') wrote:

> 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.

No? I suspect you'd be surprised, then. In my experience lighter
components generally are (usually considerably) stronger. Forged
aluminium cranks, for example, are several times stronger than cast
steel ones, and I strongly suspect that carbon ones are stronger still.

Of course, they also cost a lot more.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

Simon Brooke

in message <cu5ut05ukk0hcr2padqj9qm20jet18b7l5@4ax.com>, Martin Wilson
('martin.w6@ukonline.co.uk') wrote:

>>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?

eBay.

> Can there really be that many lightly used top end bikes going cheap?

You'll get a one year old mountain bike for about half its new price;
older ones cheaper. To get your £150 one you're probably looking at
about eight year old.

> 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.

But you're wrong, I think. A substantial proportion of bikes get bought,
ridden a couple of times, shoved in the back of the shed, forgotten,
dragged out several years later and taken to the tip. More expensive
bikes are more likely to be advertised second-hand than taken straight
to the tip, but remarkably few of these bikes have seen any significant
use.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

Simon Brooke

in message <et4ut0h1ntclsvts99hrs25tu9ns0ljqis@4ax.com>, Martin Wilson
('martin.w6@ukonline.co.uk') wrote:

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

RTFA. 'Too many' does not mean either 'most' or 'all'.

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

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

JLB

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <sdvtt0dtgsal3cm2ldnkd1m1gt7ar0qd08@4ax.com>, Martin Wilson
> ('martin.w6@ukonline.co.uk') wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No? I suspect you'd be surprised, then. In my experience lighter
> components generally are (usually considerably) stronger. Forged
> aluminium cranks, for example, are several times stronger than cast
> steel ones, and I strongly suspect that carbon ones are stronger still.
>
> Of course, they also cost a lot more.

That's confusing correlation with (implied) causation. The reason cast
components often fail before forged ones has nothing to do with weight,
and the cost of forging compared to casting is reflected in the price.
To continue your example, I'd expect a really well-made forged steel
crank to be considerably stronger than anything of the same dimensions
that could be made by any method out of an aluminium alloy (none of
these so-called aluminium components are made of pure aluminium, any
more than pure iron is used in engineering.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Martin Wilson

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:30:33 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
>
>Data? People used to say that about high end aluminium frames as well
>until EFBe fatique tested a whole range and all of the steel ones failed
>while many of the aluminium ones survived.
>
>
>Tony

Well the long guarantees on steel frames is standard for bikes
imported by conceptcycles and universal cycles. Other brands may offer
lifetime frame guarantees for all frames but no one offers long
guarantees for aluminium frames and short guarantees for steel frames.
Steel frames always have guarantees as long as aluminium frames or
they are a lot longer.

Wasn't the EFBe tests based on steel frames designed to compete for
lightness with aluminium frames? I'm making no claim that steel frames
are stronger and can be as light as aluminium especially for light
weight road racing frames. I'm just pointing out manufacturers of low
cost steel bikes which are obviously going to be heavier than the
aluminium bikes offer long guarantees on the steel bike frame even
though they are a lot cheaper than the aluminium models. Maybe this
will change when bike manufacturing moves away from using 7005
aluminium which is prone to cracking and better aluminiums like 6061
are more common which have equal strength across the whole frame and
are not a mixture of heat treated and non heat treated aluminium.