buying a bike (newbie)

Peter B

"JLB" <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:croonm$o9o$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Peter B wrote:
> > "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
>
> A what???? Where can I see one of these?
>
> >> will
> >>still fail.


Oh no I didn't! ;-)

Pete

Tony Raven

Simon Brooke 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.
>

As Keith Bontrager said "Light, strong, cheap; choose any two"

Tony

Tony Raven

Peter B wrote:
>
> 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.
>

But its all alright because they'll sell you a magic polystyrene
deflector beanie to guarantee your safety ;-)

Tony

Martin Wilson

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:04:16 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com>
wrote:

>Simon Brooke 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.
>>
>
>As Keith Bontrager said "Light, strong, cheap; choose any two"
>
>Tony

Doesn't seem a bad rule at all and at least it acknowledges that cheap
can be strong even if its not light.

Martin Wilson

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 13:20:09 +0000, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>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'.


Thats the question though isn't it? What is meant by 'too many' as it
could mean 'most' or 'all'. You could say just one was 'too many'.

Martin Wilson

>> 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.
>

Not often, bike prices can go quite high and of course you have no way
of knowing the true mechanical condition of the bike so its a complete
gamble.

>> 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.
>

Eight years is a long time to keep a bike that your not using at all.

>> 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.

So what your saying is a good percentage of people also buy expensive
bikes and are just as disappointed with them as cheap bikes but
because of the greater investment sell them secondhand rather than
dump them?

I suspect your going to argue though that when they get rid of an
expensive bike its because they're not interested in cycling anymore
but when they get rid of a cheap bike its because its rubbish. Go on
admit it, you were thinking of posting something along those lines.

I do feel though that finding such bikes is quite hard to do. A person
thinking about buying a bike is going to be competing with clued up
cyclists who most of the time are going to beat them to it. The only
real chance a first time cyclist has of getting such a deal is when
someone they know locally like a neighbour, pub contact or relative
has something like that to sell which they mention. A lot of the time
these will be stolen too. Hence the reason they aren't advertising it
properly.

I said to someone at work I was after Carrera Subway 8 back along and
also recommended it as a bike that his brother might like who was
after a good commuting bike and I know that person to be a bit shifty
now and I'm wondering if some poor Subway 8 owner is going to find it
missing one day all because of that conversation!

Martin Wilson

>
>On the subject of frames failing, none of them are indestructible. I
>still have and use an old Raleigh Royale I bought second hand. It's made
>of Reynolds 531, reputedly a very tough steel that outlasts most other
>bike frame materials. Even so, after adding to its previous history with
>some severe touring use on a quite a high bottom gear by current
>standards, riding around places like the Wicklow Mountains, I found the
>seat tube had broken in two above the bottom bracket.

Was it a double butted frame and did it break at the beginning of the
thin section? I've got a Raleigh Royal myself but has the cheaper high
tensile 20-30 frame which is probably a bit heavier and was bought new
in the late 80s. Its still fit to use though.

Clive George

"Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:349snrF4651noU1@individual.net...

> We no longer expect, nor trust, people to fit a 13amp plug

Probably not what you're getting at, but I just thought I'd mention I'm
extremely happy that the rules came in forcing things to come with plugs
fitted (1990-ish?). I remember the tedium of having to put a plug on
everything one bought. (most of the tedium being finding one, then chopping
wire to fit - ok, some brands had this right (MK) but the cheap ones still
don't.)

cheers,
clive

JLB

Clive George wrote:
> "Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:349snrF4651noU1@individual.net...
>
>
>>We no longer expect, nor trust, people to fit a 13amp plug
>
>
> Probably not what you're getting at, but I just thought I'd mention I'm
> extremely happy that the rules came in forcing things to come with plugs
> fitted (1990-ish?). I remember the tedium of having to put a plug on
> everything one bought. (most of the tedium being finding one, then chopping
> wire to fit - ok, some brands had this right (MK) but the cheap ones still
> don't.)

My joy at the change to prefitted plugs was tempered by the fact that I
had a stock of about half a dozen new plugs ready to use; I've still got
them. (Go on, make me an offer.)

One other downside of the need to fit your own plug is that nearly all
the plugs sold came with a 13 amp fuse. When this was not appropriate
the temptation was to go ahead anyway.


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

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

>Thats the question though isn't it? What is meant by 'too many' as it
>could mean 'most' or 'all'. You could say just one was 'too many'.

Oh you can take it as a large proportion of new cheap, supermarket, toys'R'Us &
H*lf*rds, etc new cheap crap, particularly cheap "full-sus" crap. I seriously
will *never* buy a bike from H*lf*rds ever again if I can possibly help it, and
when I see the cheap and nasty crap on offer in supermarkets, no wonder bikes
get bought to end up being chucked in the back of the shed/garage & never
used... Cheap does not automatically equate to good value.. or even safe.

Cheers, helen s
(will this appear!!)

--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--

JLB

Martin Wilson wrote:
>>On the subject of frames failing, none of them are indestructible. I
>>still have and use an old Raleigh Royale I bought second hand. It's made
>>of Reynolds 531, reputedly a very tough steel that outlasts most other
>>bike frame materials. Even so, after adding to its previous history with
>>some severe touring use on a quite a high bottom gear by current
>>standards, riding around places like the Wicklow Mountains, I found the
>>seat tube had broken in two above the bottom bracket.
>
>
> Was it a double butted frame and did it break at the beginning of the
> thin section? I've got a Raleigh Royal myself but has the cheaper high
> tensile 20-30 frame which is probably a bit heavier and was bought new
> in the late 80s. Its still fit to use though.

I would not be surprised if someone on urc with more knowledge can
correct this, but I bought it second hand around 1985 and AFAIR the
sticker on the frame (with original paint job) indicated plain, not DB,
531. It has been repainted since and I did not bother renewing the
stickers. The break in the tube was not far above the lower lug, roughly
where I'd expect the cyclic stresses from pedalling to have their worst
effect.

I got a new tube brazed in, but while that was going on I acquired a
considerably better tourer, so the Raleigh got relegated to hack work.

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

Martin Wilson

On 08 Jan 2005 18:50:30 GMT, wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>Thats the question though isn't it? What is meant by 'too many' as it
>>could mean 'most' or 'all'. You could say just one was 'too many'.
>
>Oh you can take it as a large proportion of new cheap, supermarket, toys'R'Us &
>H*lf*rds, etc new cheap crap, particularly cheap "full-sus" crap. I seriously
>will *never* buy a bike from H*lf*rds ever again if I can possibly help it, and
>when I see the cheap and nasty crap on offer in supermarkets, no wonder bikes
>get bought to end up being chucked in the back of the shed/garage & never
>used... Cheap does not automatically equate to good value.. or even safe.
>

>(will this appear!!)
>

I went in Toys R Us at Cribbs Causeway in Bristol and must admit I
wasn't impressed with their selection. I don't think they had a single
rigid adult bike there. It was full suspension or nothing basically.
They also had that newish Schwinn stingray bike with the huge rear
wheel. The kid who gets that is going to be seriously left behind.
Even the dual suspension bikes will be miles ahead. Not bad I suppose
if all your mates have got the same bike. If you don't know what I
mean look here;

http://www.schwinnstingray.com/video/united60.wmv

What actual cheap bikes do you consider unsafe? I don't think you
could throw that accusation at my cheap bike as its coped with upto 26
stone and the brakes work. To be perfectly honest the brakes on the
bike are fantastic compared to the brakes of bikes in the past even
with my great weight. Thats not to say it would compare well with
better quality V brakes though. In the past with the old sidepull
bikes and steel rims I can remember some really dodgy braking
situations coming down hills in the wet. I've not had that with my
current cheap bike. The worst they might do is squeal a bit (who can
blame them) when I brake really hard or at least the back one does. So
effectively this cheap bike is a lot safer than practically all bikes
that didn't have V brakes in the past.

Halfords do Carrera and Konas and probably other reasonable brands too
(only working from memory here) so not all the bikes are terrible.
Also some Halfords stores have been reported to be very good. Mine
seems friendly enough but not so sure of their workmanship though as
I've never used them, however some people have reported excellent
service from Halfords.

Clive George

"JLB" <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:crp9gs$pa0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

> My joy at the change to prefitted plugs was tempered by the fact that I
> had a stock of about half a dozen new plugs ready to use; I've still got
> them. (Go on, make me an offer.)

tee hee. Actually I still get through them slowly - mostly smashing existing
ones, and the last one was for a lamp I made.

> One other downside of the need to fit your own plug is that nearly all
> the plugs sold came with a 13 amp fuse. When this was not appropriate
> the temptation was to go ahead anyway.

Good point. And there's a good thing about some of the moulded ones too -
the fuse holder.

cheers,
clive

Jon Senior

Martin Wilson wrote:
> 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? ;-)

But the guarantee is (probably) a gamble. As you demonstrate, it works
well as a sales pitch, and the number of times they have to actually
honour it (even if frames fail) is probably very small.

The reference to cast iron was demonstration that it heavy != strong.
The biggest effect on strength is quality of construction. My first two
homebuilt frames failed at a joint (Or rather... the same frame failed
twice!) as a consequence of my less-than-capable welding skills and poor
frame design. The frame in question had 2mm walls on the (square) tubes.

But there is more to a frame than longevity. A badly aligned derallieur
hanger will induce poor shifting, no matter the components that are
fitted. A mistracking rear wheel will rob energy, wear tyres and have
(Albeit small) an effect on the handling.

The difference between a chip manufactured by Intel and one manufactured
by Cyrix used to be the quality control. Both manufacturers worked at
the limits of the technology, but Intel were more stringent about what
they allowed out[1]. I would not be surprised if the same were true for
the frames produced in the far east. A guarantee is all very well, but a
well-known brand would be on dodgy ground if they marketed poor frames
as their own.

Jon

[1] Despite this, I've always run AMD! :-)