Cheapo bike



half_pint wrote:
> "Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > > Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you

choose?
> >
> > A good second hand one will be the answer, although you will have

to know
> > what to look for.

>
> Given the low prices of new bikes that is hardly a viable option.
> >
> > New 'proper' bikes (i.e. not made of cheese) start at about £200.

At this
> > price point avoid anything with suspension like the plague. A new

bike
> has
> > the advantage of nothing needing replacing as soon as you get it,

and, in
> > any half decent bike shop, getting its first service free.

>
> But you will not need a service, mine was a cheapo bike and it had

not
> needed
> "servicing" in 5-6 years.
>
> If you spend £200+ on bike and it needs a "service" within a year

than you
> have
> purchased a lemon.


The point of the first free service is to get things like gears &
brakes adjusted due to the cable stretch, checking that the rider has
the seat post properly set, and so on.

Why don't you go back to uk.legal and re-start your campaign to get
widescreen TV banned? With the incredible wealth of knowledge and
experience here, I find it remarkable that you dare to counter someone
else's contribution, and then talk about a bike with the Apollo name
across it.

--
Hywel
 
M

Martin Wilson

Guest
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:28:47 +0000, MSeries <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Steve L wrote:
>> Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you choose?

>
>What do you want to do with it ? Get a secondhand bike that is is good
>order, one with proper components that can be upgraded when their time
>comes, Don't get a £70 special from a car accessory shop, the components
>are rubbish and if you do anything other than tootling round town you
>will be wondering why the fastest, fittest people have the nicest bikes.


Maybe the components are rubbish on a lot of cheap bikes but you see
the same components like tourney gears on some bikes as high as £400.
I note that the once great Raleigh bikes seem to have tourney gears
across almost the whole range which are exactly the same as fitted to
sterling house £40 bikes. The generic non branded alloy wheels also
make an appearance on a lot of branded bikes at the bottom end. Also
7005 aluminium which Giant won't even use now on its own models
(though uses it for frames it makes for other brands I believe or used
to) is the most prone to cracking and a lot of top brands are still
using it in preference to better alloys.

As well as some brilliantly specced models out there, there is also a
lot of high price ****. Its a minefield frankly.

Just remember a lot of the frames of the mid to bottom range models of
the top brands like Trek, Specialized, GT etc are made by exactly the
same people in the same factory as the cheapo Apollo's and other low
cost generic models. Probably the 7005 aluminium frame models mostly.

http://www.idealbike.com.tw/image/logo.html

My recipe for a low cost but decent bike would be;

A 6061 aluminium frame.

a seatpost with micro adjustment (real cheap bikes don't have this and
getting the saddle angle just right is very important to comfort)

a gear system which is a step up from tourney level components but if
nothing else make sure the rear derailleur isn't a tourney/TX type. At
least 21 speed although 24 or 27 would be nice.

An Ahead type stem/handlebar system. Not sure I've got the wording
right but I'm sure you know what I mean.

Replacable dropout (just indicates frame quality more than anything).

Something like the Giant Terrago FS3 for £239.99 at paulscycles would
be worth considering;

http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/giant2003.htm

You won't get better than Giant for state of the art quality bikes at
low prices with decent equipment levels, plus with Giant you know
whatever price you pay you get a superbly made frame from the most
advanced high volume frame manufacturing facility on the planet.

However I have to say I bought a £60 so called throwaway bike and love
it. Its coped with over 26 stone when I came back to cycling and I'm
still now over 20 stone (about 20.4 stone) and its still fine after
over 500 miles riding. I do at least 40 miles a week commuting now
with it. Of course a better bike (which I have but still a few pounds
too heavy to ride) would be better but all bikes are great.

However my bike buying decision was based on strength of the bike
where as most people are more interested in lightness. As someone over
20 stone a bike which is a few pounds lighter than another is a bit
insignificant compared to my overall weight. For someone of my weight
steel or chromoly steel is the only frame option.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Dave
> Kahn wrote:
>>"half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>> At today prices secondhand is not viable, its like buying a
>>> secondhand cheese sandwich. I mean I would never consider buying a
>>> second hand TV set (or video recorder) they have no value these days
>>> as new ones are so cheap

>>
>>At today's prices buying second hand means you can get a very, very
>>nice bike for the same kind of money you would pay for a new Apollo.

>
> Or if you were really silly (even sillier that half_pint is being) you
> could go to a police auction and pay more for a secondhand Apollo than
> it cost new. I have seen this done.


Saddest thing I've seen recently was a lad coming into the LBS with a
second hand Raleigh which he had, he said (and I see no reason to doubt
him) paid £150 for. It was a gaspipe-frame rigid mountain bike from
around 1994 judging by the gears (Shimano, indexed, twist-grip changer,
21 speed, not Biopace). The back end of the frame was completely out of
line and the rear wheel buckled beyond repair. The enterprising vendor
had apparently assured him that this would 'cost a tenner to fix'.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal
 
M

MSeries

Guest
Martin Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:28:47 +0000, MSeries <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve L wrote:
>>
>>>Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you choose?

>>
>>What do you want to do with it ? Get a secondhand bike that is is good
>>order, one with proper components that can be upgraded when their time
>>comes, Don't get a £70 special from a car accessory shop, the components
>>are rubbish and if you do anything other than tootling round town you
>>will be wondering why the fastest, fittest people have the nicest bikes.

>
>
> Maybe the components are rubbish on a lot of cheap bikes but you see
> the same components like tourney gears on some bikes as high as £400.
> I note that the once great Raleigh bikes seem to have tourney gears
> across almost the whole range which are exactly the same as fitted to
> sterling house £40 bikes. The generic non branded alloy wheels also
> make an appearance on a lot of branded bikes at the bottom end. Also
> 7005 aluminium which Giant won't even use now on its own models
> (though uses it for frames it makes for other brands I believe or used
> to) is the most prone to cracking and a lot of top brands are still
> using it in preference to better alloys.
>
> As well as some brilliantly specced models out there, there is also a
> lot of high price ****. Its a minefield frankly.
>
> Just remember a lot of the frames of the mid to bottom range models of
> the top brands like Trek, Specialized, GT etc are made by exactly the
> same people in the same factory as the cheapo Apollo's and other low
> cost generic models. Probably the 7005 aluminium frame models mostly.
>
> http://www.idealbike.com.tw/image/logo.html
>
> My recipe for a low cost but decent bike would be;
>
> A 6061 aluminium frame.
>
> a seatpost with micro adjustment (real cheap bikes don't have this and
> getting the saddle angle just right is very important to comfort)
>
> a gear system which is a step up from tourney level components but if
> nothing else make sure the rear derailleur isn't a tourney/TX type. At
> least 21 speed although 24 or 27 would be nice.
>
> An Ahead type stem/handlebar system. Not sure I've got the wording
> right but I'm sure you know what I mean.
>
> Replacable dropout (just indicates frame quality more than anything).
>
> Something like the Giant Terrago FS3 for £239.99 at paulscycles would
> be worth considering;
>
> http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/giant2003.htm
>
> You won't get better than Giant for state of the art quality bikes at
> low prices with decent equipment levels, plus with Giant you know
> whatever price you pay you get a superbly made frame from the most
> advanced high volume frame manufacturing facility on the planet.
>
> However I have to say I bought a £60 so called throwaway bike and love
> it. Its coped with over 26 stone when I came back to cycling and I'm
> still now over 20 stone (about 20.4 stone) and its still fine after
> over 500 miles riding. I do at least 40 miles a week commuting now
> with it. Of course a better bike (which I have but still a few pounds
> too heavy to ride) would be better but all bikes are great.
>
> However my bike buying decision was based on strength of the bike
> where as most people are more interested in lightness. As someone over
> 20 stone a bike which is a few pounds lighter than another is a bit
> insignificant compared to my overall weight. For someone of my weight
> steel or chromoly steel is the only frame option.


You pay your money and take your choice. I have epxressed my opinion,
let the OP choose. FWIW I only ride old steel and I weigh 11 stones.
 
M

Martin Wilson

Guest

>You're one of these people who buy Beko tellys and sit there thinking you've
>got something over on someone who's bought a decent one, claims that 8p a
>tin baked beans taste exactly the same as heinz and that panda cola tastes
>just like coke. I'm no fan of spending money, but if I were given the option
>between buying a brand new Kia for £5k or a second hand Jag or BMW, I'd go
>for quality over having something new everytime.
>


Beko tvs are generally regarded as being slightly better than Vestel.
Beko (actually a company by the unfortunate name of Arcelik who are
part of the Koc Holdings Group (double unfortunate) who use Beko as
their international brand for obvious reasons) and Vestel are both
large turkish manufacturing operations.

www.arcelik.com

Vestel sets are rebranded by Hitachi, Toshiba, Thomson, JVC, Philips
and numerous other top brands (but not Sony or Panasonic). You can
often find the same set as a Bush model also rebranded as Toshiba.
Underneath its the same Vestel model but the Toshiba is a lot dearer
than the Bush. This is fact.

I actually prefer Tesco value beans to Heinz beans. Although have to
admit most economy type beans from supermarkets generally are rubbish.
The tesco version is the exception though. Panda cola is most
definitely awful although its so long ago that I had it maybe its a
bit different now.

So its basically the same old story in that a top brand does not
guarantee a better set. There are people buying £300 Toshiba sets
thinking they have a better set than a £200 Beko set and this isn't
true. When Toshiba rebrand a Vestel set you are effectively having to
pay the profit of both Vestel and Toshiba and gaining nothing in value
for the end consumer. Nowadays though you can bypass a profit layer
for Toshiba, Bush or whoever because often Vestel trades directly with
larger supermarkets/shops or a very minimalist importer and you end up
with a weekly offer of a vestel set with a complete unknown brand like
Technovision or some other made up name at an even lower price than a
Bush branded model.

A brand is simply a sticker on a product and doesn't necessarily mean
you are getting extra quality. Even top brands like Sony have a lot of
their manufacturing done by Samsung. Just about all the Sony VCRs of
recent years have been made by Samsung but many Sony brand snobs
wouldn't touch Samsung with a barge pole. Most of the lower end
digital cameras and camcorders are made by Samsung too. Funny thing is
Samsung offer 2 years guarantee on their digital cameras but when the
get the Sony restyle and brand stuck on they become a lot more
expensive and only offer 1 year guarantee.

I'm just making the point that a brand in itself is just a mild
indicator of quality especially at the lower price range of models.

>FWIW, If I were buying a bike, £150 gets you something useable, £150 second
>hand could get you something a lot better if you bought carefully.
>
 
B

Burning_Ranger

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Burning_Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Steve L wrote:
>>> Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you choose?

>>
>> Secondhand Trek/Specialized

>
> At today prices secondhand is not viable, its like buying a secondhand
> cheese sandwich. I mean I would never consider buying a second hand TV
> set (or video recorder) they have no value these days as new ones are
> so cheap
> (hence a drop in house burglaries!!)


That doesn't make sense. A LOT of people who buy bikes do it on a whim or
hardly ever ride it on anything other than flat roads. The bike then
proceeds to go unused in a bike shed for a long time. If you can find one of
these bikes (and they are quite common) you'll be getting something that is
at the very least in good mechanical condition (often in excellent cosmetic
condition too)

--

Burning_Ranger

To email: [email protected]
 
D

Doki

Guest
Martin Wilson wrote:

> I'm just making the point that a brand in itself is just a mild
> indicator of quality especially at the lower price range of models.


I agree 100%. I remember a couple of years ago when Sony were apparently
making some absolutely shocking tellys. A lot of the really cheap electrical
stuff has terrible ergonomics which is what puts me off them.

My point was more that it's far far better to get a second hand thing of
good quality than something new and made of cheese.
 
D

Doki

Guest
Martin Wilson wrote:

> However my bike buying decision was based on strength of the bike
> where as most people are more interested in lightness. As someone over
> 20 stone a bike which is a few pounds lighter than another is a bit
> insignificant compared to my overall weight. For someone of my weight
> steel or chromoly steel is the only frame option.


IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a 10 stone
rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%. And we all know
that you can't save anything like that amount of weight on most half decent
bikes.. The bloke who owns the bike shop near me says "There's only one
heavy thing on my bike, and that's the rider". And he builds frames for
roadies...
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Burning_Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Burning_Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> Steve L wrote:
> >>> Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you choose?
> >>
> >> Secondhand Trek/Specialized

> >
> > At today prices secondhand is not viable, its like buying a secondhand
> > cheese sandwich. I mean I would never consider buying a second hand TV
> > set (or video recorder) they have no value these days as new ones are
> > so cheap
> > (hence a drop in house burglaries!!)

>
> That doesn't make sense. A LOT of people who buy bikes do it on a whim or
> hardly ever ride it on anything other than flat roads. The bike then
> proceeds to go unused in a bike shed for a long time. If you can find one

of
> these bikes (and they are quite common) you'll be getting something that

is
> at the very least in good mechanical condition (often in excellent

cosmetic
> condition too)
>


In which case they will probably want alomst what they
paid for it (used once etc..)

> --
>
> Burning_Ranger
>
> To email: [email protected]
>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> Martin Wilson wrote:
>
> > However my bike buying decision was based on strength of the bike
> > where as most people are more interested in lightness. As someone over
> > 20 stone a bike which is a few pounds lighter than another is a bit
> > insignificant compared to my overall weight. For someone of my weight
> > steel or chromoly steel is the only frame option.

>
> IMO, bike weight is pretty irrelevant much of the time. Even with a 10

stone
> rider, a weight saving of 10 pounds on the bike is only 7%. And we all

know
> that you can't save anything like that amount of weight on most half

decent
> bikes.. The bloke who owns the bike shop near me says "There's only one
> heavy thing on my bike, and that's the rider". And he builds frames for
> roadies...


I would say the weight of a bike is actually pretty much irrelevant.
Whilst it may take you a little longer to get up to a given speed
once you reach that speed you will have more momentum than on a
light bike so you will be able to 'coast' for longer so there is no real
over all gain.
Similarly hills may be a big harder to climb but you will gain more
momentum hoing down them and you will be able to gain more momentum
going in to them.
Also a heavier frame will probably be stiffer and thus make the bike a
little more efficient.
>
>
 
D

Doki

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Burning_Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> That doesn't make sense. A LOT of people who buy bikes do it on a
>> whim or hardly ever ride it on anything other than flat roads. The
>> bike then proceeds to go unused in a bike shed for a long time. If
>> you can find one of these bikes (and they are quite common) you'll
>> be getting something that is at the very least in good mechanical
>> condition (often in excellent cosmetic condition too)
>>

>
> In which case they will probably want alomst what they
> paid for it (used once etc..)


You don't have any idea about what a second hand bike's worth, do you? You
take a bike out of the showroom, and 25% of it's value drops off it straight
away. If it's last years model, it's even cheaper. Even if it has only been
in the shed.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Burning_Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> >> That doesn't make sense. A LOT of people who buy bikes do it on a
> >> whim or hardly ever ride it on anything other than flat roads. The
> >> bike then proceeds to go unused in a bike shed for a long time. If
> >> you can find one of these bikes (and they are quite common) you'll
> >> be getting something that is at the very least in good mechanical
> >> condition (often in excellent cosmetic condition too)
> >>

> >
> > In which case they will probably want alomst what they
> > paid for it (used once etc..)

>
> You don't have any idea about what a second hand bike's worth, do you? You
> take a bike out of the showroom, and 25% of it's value drops off it

straight
> away. If it's last years model, it's even cheaper. Even if it has only

been
> in the shed.


Well the same could be siaid for cheap bikes.
There is also the extra 'hassle' factor buying second hand and then
there is the "if it is so good why are they selling it?" aspect.


>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> >
> >Given the low prices of new bikes that is hardly a viable option.

>
> Depends whether you class a £100 new bike good value or money down the

drain
> ;-)
>
> Example. I've had a cheap bike before. It was heavy but I loved it. Then I

got
> a decent bike costing somehat more dosh. That bought me a lighter bike,

better
> made components and a much smoother ride where my mileage doubled

overbight
> without extra effort on my part. I still have that bike sixteen years

later and
> it's still in excellent condition and working order.
>
> But now I've got a couple of even better (& more expensive) bikes. Cue

even
> better, more enjoyable rides still.
>
> If I had £100 to spend, I would not get a new cheap bike. I'd be looking

around
> for a better built, better spec'd one second-hand.


Depends what you want from a bike, I want one which is reliable,
sturdy, rattle and maintaince free, which is pretty much what I have.
I also want one which will not catch the eye of bike thieves who will
hopefully go for the £300 model rather than my less eye-catching £100
one. I can prety much lock my bike up anywhere and expect it to be
there when I come back, /i would not feel so confident with a more
expensive looking one.

>
> 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$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>
> --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched

off--
>
>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>, half_pint
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >
> > "Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> > Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you choose?
> >>
> >> A good second hand one will be the answer, although you will have to
> >> know what to look for.

> >
> > Given the low prices of new bikes that is hardly a viable option.

>
> There are no cheap new bikes which are worth having. There are plenty of
> second hand bikes which are really good. Anyone with less than £200 to
> spend who buys a new bike is a fool, in my opinion.
>
>
> > If you spend £200+ on bike and it needs a "service" within a year
> > than you have
> > purchased a lemon.

>
> Well, I haven't spent less than a thousand on a bike for years, and all
> mine get a service every three months. They ain't lemons. If you do
> 5,000 miles on a bike without giving it a service you're going to end
> up with expensive trouble.


I doubt your average cyclist gets anywhere near 5,000 mile in a year
my bike is 5-6 year old, is used almost daily and I have not had to spend
a penny on it.
The gear cable could now do with a slight adjustment (when I get round to
it)
but other than that nothing. I have never had to touch or even adjust the
brakes,
something which I recall as being a constant problem "when I was a lad".
Even on cheap bikes I find the components of excellent quality and
reliability,
modern production makes producing such items 'a doddle'
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; how did we conclude that a ****ing cartoon mouse is deserving
> ;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14?
> -- user 'Tackhead', in /. discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"JLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> > My tip is avoid anything with mudguards on it!!! If you intend to
> > cycle in the rain you will get soaked anyway!! And mudguards mean
> > rattles!!

>
> For a start, mudguards are not an integral part of the bike. If you see
> a bike that suits you and it has mudguards you do not want, take them off.
>
> All my bikes have mudguards. None of them rattle. Of course mudguards
> don't stop rain landing on the rider. If they are any good, they do stop
> the rider (and bike) being showered with a stream of **** off the
> wheels. The road is often wet when it is not raining; in that
> circumstance mudguards are the difference between being dry and being
> wet/mucky.
>
> How much use you have for mudguards will be down to your type of riding.


Well I tend not to use my bike when it is raining as you will get soaked
anyway and it is no fun (and far more dangerous riding in the wet).
Any how I have a rear rack which could easily be made to function
as a mudguard with a bit of cardboard or whatever.
I do not think mountain bike wheels (26-27"?) tend to throw
up as much spray onto the body as a standard bike.
>
>
> --
> Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > My tip is avoid anything with mudguards on it!!! If you intend to
> > cycle in the rain you will get soaked anyway!! And mudguards mean
> > rattles!!

>
> Bad advice. Mudguards make a huge difference on wet roads.


I avoid wet roads, apart from anything else you are probably
twice (or more) likely to be involved in an accident.
>
> --
> Dave...
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
>
> >
> > My tip is avoid anything with mudguards on it!!! If you intend to
> > cycle in the rain you will get soaked anyway!! And mudguards mean
> > rattles!!

>
> But if you ride a mudguardless bike on roads covred in wet mud and
> slurry you and your bike will get covered in wet mud and slurry. By
> slurry I of course mean cow ****. I used a road on Saturday which for
> about 3 miles was covred in this stuff, my mudguards kept most of it off
> me and the bike, it hadn't rained that day nor the day. I prefer not to
> be covered in cow ****, you of course may have a different view.


The only cows within 3 miles of me are chopped up and on display
on the shelves at Sainsburys (when they are not out of stock of course).
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > At today prices secondhand is not viable, its like buying a secondhand
> > cheese sandwich. I mean I would never consider buying a second hand TV
> > set (or video recorder) they have no value these days as new ones are so
> > cheap

>
> At today's prices buying second hand means you can get a very, very
> nice bike for the same kind of money you would pay for a new Apollo.
> There is a case to be made for buying something cheap and disposable
> like an Apollo if theft and vandalism are concerns and it will mainly
> be used for short utility journeys or commutes.


Another problem with second hand is that it may turn out to have been
stolen!!

>
> --
> Dave...
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Burning_Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> Steve L wrote:
> >>> Say you only had around £150 to spend, which bike would you choose?
> >>
> >> Secondhand Trek/Specialized

> >
> > At today prices secondhand is not viable, its like buying a secondhand
> > cheese sandwich. I mean I would never consider buying a second hand TV
> > set (or video recorder) they have no value these days as new ones are
> > so cheap
> > (hence a drop in house burglaries!!)

>
> You're one of these people who buy Beko tellys and sit there thinking

you've
> got something over on someone who's bought a decent one, claims that 8p a
> tin baked beans taste exactly the same as heinz and that panda cola tastes
> just like coke.


Just because you pay £500 for a telly does not mean it will not
fail in a couple of years.
I have bought many "bottom of the range items, TV, computer video
which have proved extremely reliable.
My mid-range "Bush" Stereo radio set proved to be a lemon as did
the one which it was replaced with.
My older Matsui video proved rather unreliable, I am much happier
with the Sharp one I replaced it with. (sllightly better brand Sharp
but hardly top of the range).

Paying through the noise does not guarantee quality, and your
product "guarentee" may not turn out to be worth the
paper it is printed on, (if the retailer goes bust, for instance).

>I'm no fan of spending money, but if I were given the option
> between buying a brand new Kia for £5k or a second hand Jag or BMW, I'd go
> for quality over having something new everytime.


I would leave the second hand Jag alone if I was you!!

>
> FWIW, If I were buying a bike, £150 gets you something useable, £150

second
> hand could get you something a lot better if you bought carefully.
>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Martin Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> >You're one of these people who buy Beko tellys and sit there thinking

you've
> >got something over on someone who's bought a decent one, claims that 8p a
> >tin baked beans taste exactly the same as heinz and that panda cola

tastes
> >just like coke. I'm no fan of spending money, but if I were given the

option
> >between buying a brand new Kia for £5k or a second hand Jag or BMW, I'd

go
> >for quality over having something new everytime.
> >

>
> Beko tvs are generally regarded as being slightly better than Vestel.
> Beko (actually a company by the unfortunate name of Arcelik who are
> part of the Koc Holdings Group (double unfortunate) who use Beko as
> their international brand for obvious reasons) and Vestel are both
> large turkish manufacturing operations.
>
> www.arcelik.com
>
> Vestel sets are rebranded by Hitachi, Toshiba, Thomson, JVC, Philips
> and numerous other top brands (but not Sony or Panasonic). You can
> often find the same set as a Bush model also rebranded as Toshiba.
> Underneath its the same Vestel model but the Toshiba is a lot dearer
> than the Bush. This is fact.
>
> I actually prefer Tesco value beans to Heinz beans. Although have to
> admit most economy type beans from supermarkets generally are rubbish.
> The tesco version is the exception though. Panda cola is most
> definitely awful although its so long ago that I had it maybe its a
> bit different now.


Tesco beans were a bit tasteless when i tried them, Aldi are probably
best, Sainsburys are sometimse unfit for human or animal
consumption.
>
> So its basically the same old story in that a top brand does not
> guarantee a better set. There are people buying £300 Toshiba sets
> thinking they have a better set than a £200 Beko set and this isn't
> true. When Toshiba rebrand a Vestel set you are effectively having to
> pay the profit of both Vestel and Toshiba and gaining nothing in value
> for the end consumer. Nowadays though you can bypass a profit layer
> for Toshiba, Bush or whoever because often Vestel trades directly with
> larger supermarkets/shops or a very minimalist importer and you end up
> with a weekly offer of a vestel set with a complete unknown brand like
> Technovision or some other made up name at an even lower price than a
> Bush branded model.


My experience with a BUSH stereo radio cassette bought from
Powerhouse (which went bust taking my product guarantee with
it) has put me right off BUSH. Initially the FM radio failed, I was
forced to pay £16 for a replacement which now has a failed CD
player on it so I am not very happy.


My parents also had a TV set in which the picture was "too big for the
screen"
they paid £50 to get it fixed and it is a perfect picture now.

>
> A brand is simply a sticker on a product and doesn't necessarily mean
> you are getting extra quality. Even top brands like Sony have a lot of
> their manufacturing done by Samsung. Just about all the Sony VCRs of
> recent years have been made by Samsung but many Sony brand snobs
> wouldn't touch Samsung with a barge pole. Most of the lower end
> digital cameras and camcorders are made by Samsung too. Funny thing is
> Samsung offer 2 years guarantee on their digital cameras but when the
> get the Sony restyle and brand stuck on they become a lot more
> expensive and only offer 1 year guarantee.
>
> I'm just making the point that a brand in itself is just a mild
> indicator of quality especially at the lower price range of models.
>
> >FWIW, If I were buying a bike, £150 gets you something useable, £150

second
> >hand could get you something a lot better if you bought carefully.
> >

>