Dave wrote:
> Peter, I'm responding from personal experience and recognise everyones =
right
> to their views. Unfortunately I think a lot of people are put off cycli=
ng by
> the initial large outlay.
I'm responding from personal experience too: I find =A3100 budget bikes t= o=20 be awful, and I
quite understand why so many of them get put in garages=20 and never ridden much. We must get
"large outlay" into perspective. My next door neighbour=20 bought a Brompton a wee while back
(=A3459), he wasn't a cyclist before h= e=20 got it. And he thinks it paid for itself in pure
financial terms within =
a year. Sure, if you haven't got the money, you haven't got the money,=20 but for a lot of people,
especially people who can afford PCs and an=20 internet habit, =A3200 really is *not* that much
compared to all sorts of=
=20
other things. That's only a little more than a year's car tax, don't=20 forget, and substantially
less than petrol and insurance over a year.
> I really wish I'd have had the knowledge / confidence to go and buy se=
cond
> hand straight away. I bought cheap new with the view that I would have =
a
> certain amount of consumer rights backing me up if anything went wrong =
in
> the first few months prior to picking up the relevant knowledge once mo=
re
> and becoming familiar with good and bad LBSs.
Problem with consumer rights is that plain "not very much fun" isn't=20 covered.
> Technical progress, whilst in the main is probably 'a good thing' is no=
t
> necessarily so in all cases. Take gear changing for example. I was boug=
ht up
> on downtube friction shifters, never had any problem at all. I then lef=
t
> cycling for 20 odd years and by the time I came back to it, indexed shi=
fters
> were all the rage. I have several bikes with variants of both, upto Shi=
mano
> Deore XT on the mountain bike (proper not pseudo). To be very honest, a=
nd
> I've given them both a fair crack of the whip here, I still prefer the friction.
I can work with either, but it misses the point that where you used to=20 get pretty clunky 5 speeds
you now get far better produced 8 speeds if=20 you spend just a little more money. Whether you use
downtube friction=20 of bar mounted rapidfires doesn't alter the fact that the transmission=20 is
better. But do you *really* prefer downtube friction shifters when you're on an=20 MTB? AFAICT
indexing largely evolved from MTB-ers need to quickly and=20 accurately change gear without taking
hands off the bars or end up=20 getting thrown off their bikes. Changing gear on radical terrain
is=20 very different from doing it on the road. But now it's evolved that way then it's getting
everywhere, even where=20 it's money spent on chrome rather than basic sound engineering. And=20
=A3100 bikes are sold on how many marketing bullet points can get crammed=
=20
in under a =A399.99! splash price, not on how good a basic piece of sound=
=20
engineering can be built for the price. So we get bargain bikes with=20 suspension forks and disc
brakes because they're perceived to be good.=20 And they *are* good, *if* you spend serious money on
the engineering,=20 but of course that's not happening. Go to =A3200 and though there's even=
=20
*more* "never mind the quality, feel the width" machinery (full=20 suspension and discs now!)
there's also sensibly built and specced=20 machinery designed for people looking for a working bike.
And it's a=20 better working bike now than you'd have paid =A3200 for in 1990, showing =
that in real terms prices are *very* much lower than they used to be.
> Keeping in mind the basic raison d'etre for the bike is to get the ride=
r
> from a-b, a bit quicker than walking and in a friendlier fashion than driving, as long as it's
> relatively light, has a useable gear range and=
> effective brakes, it'll be fulfilling it's basic requirements.....anyth=
ing
> else is just the icing on the cake.
The basic requirements should include being a nice enough experience for =
the rider to want to do it again and again and again. Garages the=20 length of the land contain
=A3100 bikes that don't get used, even though =
they can get from A to B. And quite what you think "relatively light"=20 is I'm not sure: most
=A3100 bikes weigh quite a bit, because they're mad= e=20 of low quality, reasonably thick steel
tubing (and because fat tubes are =
trendy, often heavier than they even need to be given the poor materials)=
=2E
> I do appreciate that giving a child a cheap (heavy) steel bicycle will probably have the undesired
> effect of putting them off cycling for life=
=2E
No, not really that likely, as kids have little viable alternative to=20 what they're given and
can't drive instead. Also the case that they're=20 generally pratting around on them rather than
using them for A to B=20 travel, so if it gets a chore they just stop and play at something else.
> However, there are effective cheap adult bikes available that will do t=
he
> job for the price.
Not new for =A3100, that I've seen yet.
Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
