Please help me choose a first bike

[[email protected]]

I'm an adult, not a child.

I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.

I'm considering this one
http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl

Or this folding one
http://tinyurl.com/3y29v2

I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.

What do you guys think?

Thanks.

 

[Roger Burton West]

flifus wrote:

>I'm an adult, not a child.
>I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
>transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.

I learned to cycle quite recently and I'm not at all authoritative, but
the impressions I've got seem to be:

Folding != inexpensive. A cheap folder will fold when you don't want it
to. Ditto suspension - cheap suspension will be more trouble than a
rigid frame would have been. Stick with a simple frame with no frills.
Expect to pay at least 200-250 quid for the bike.

Find an actual bike shop near you, if possible, and try out a few
different models.

R

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

[email protected] wrote:
> I'm an adult, not a child.
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>
> I'm considering this one
> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl
>
> Or this folding one
> http://tinyurl.com/3y29v2
>
> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.
>
> What do you guys think?

1) Unless you know what you are doing, buy a bike from a bicycle shop. A
bike shop will be able to carry out any repairs or adjustments. That rules
out Argos, Tesco, ToysRus and cheap mail order places. Several bike shops I
know refuse to repair or service bikes bought from cheap outlets (often
because they have had a miserable time explaining to a customer that their
"bargain" bike needs more money spending on sorting defects than a decent
new bike from the bike shop would have cost).

2) Cheap folders tend to be rubbish. So I think I'd forget the folder. Good
makes of folders include Dahon and Brompton. Dahon might be affordable to
you. I suspect Brompton would be beyond what you would consider spending.

3) Bikes for general transport and getting about = very good idea. So, the
first option doesn't look too bad as "transport". But, I'd forget the
suspension bits, and the comment about Argos being a very bad place to
purchase still stands.


So, what to get ?
Head down to a bike shop. Ask them questions about spares and repairs.
Something from Giant or Ridgeback brands is unlikely to be a bad buy. eg.
Ridgeback "Speed", Giant "Expression". The Giant will be a bit cheaper.



- Nigel





--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[PDannyD]

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 17:05, [email protected] [[email protected]]
wrote in message <[email protected]>

>
> I'm an adult, not a child.
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.

> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.

How about a traditional roadster with hub gears? Absolute simplicity and
comfort plus they'll generally go on for decades with minimum maintenance.
A wanted ad in your local paper should have people scurrying to their sheds
to offload their old bikes. £20 should get you a good one.

Personally I'd avoid any cheap bike which has derailleur gears, folding bits
or suspension - they're usually more trouble than they're worth.

 

[Mike Causer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:05:28 -0800, flifus wrote:

> I'm an adult, not a child.
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>
> I'm considering this one
> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl

Arrrgh. Suspension seat post, mattress saddle, steel mudguards & hubs,
6-speed, so it's probably got a very old-fashioned rear hub/gear.
You should be able to do a *lot* better for £150. Do not pay for
suspension, either on the seatpost nor the forks. The most important
thing for comfort is fit, and you can't get that at Argos. A steel frame
is OK, but everything else should be aluminium, or plastic for mudguards, A
hard saddle is more comfortable than a soft one; this might seem
improbable, but a soft saddle puts the load onto your soft bits, and a
hard saddle puts it onto your hard bits -- ie bones.

If you have any friends who already cycle, or if there are any
regular cyclists at work, ask about the local second-hand market and if
they'll help you get the right size and check the safety & wear items.
Failing that go to a bike shop that will measure you up and let you try
suitably-sized bikes.


Mike

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Mike Causer wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:05:28 -0800, flifus wrote:
>
>> I'm an adult, not a child.
>>
>> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
>> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>>
>> I'm considering this one
>> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl
>
> Arrrgh. Suspension seat post, mattress saddle, steel mudguards &
> hubs, 6-speed, so it's probably got a very old-fashioned rear
> hub/gear.
> You should be able to do a *lot* better for £150. Do not pay for
> suspension, either on the seatpost nor the forks.


I disagree about "suspension being unnecessary on the seat".
For an upright bicycle position, springs and suspension have their uses;
either in the form of a sprung seatpost, or a traditional sprung saddle (eg.
some venerable Brooks designs, still on sale to this day).
The question is how to achieve comfort, and not to be sucked into "soft
comfy foam/gel" which rarely works effectively.

The "don't use springs" comments usually come from those who are used to the
forward leaning position of racing, drop-bar touring or sport mountain
bikes. In those cases, weight is carried by legs and arms. But a more
upright relaxed position puts shock loads straight up the spine.


> A hard saddle is more comfortable than a soft one; this might seem
> improbable, but a soft saddle puts the load onto your soft bits, and a
> hard saddle puts it onto your hard bits -- ie bones

Whilst this is "sort of" correct (the soft bits squishing), a hard saddle on
an upright bike doesn't work for most people.



I agree about the bad sprung forks and the "could get a better bike
elsewhere" comments.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 31/01/2007 17:05, [email protected] said,

> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.

> What do you guys think?

I think you ought to visit your local bike shop and talk to them, rather
than buy something from Argos [1] that will have no support and will not
be set up at all. A bike shop will sell you a bike that you actually
want and fits you, rather than what you think you want and doesn't fit.
Do you know how to make sure the bike will fit, for instance? There's
more to it than frame size. A lot of people new to cycling can be seen
riding on bikes that are badly set up or just plain too big/small. They
then find that they get uncomfortable, don't like it and give up.

A good bike shop will genuinely want to help you - it's their
livelihood. They're used to people walking in and saying "I'd like to
buy a bike - can you help me choose one please."

Whatever you decide to do, good luck and I hope you enjoy cycling.

[1] Ooops - wrong thread

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>
> I'm considering this one
> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl
>
> Or this folding one
> http://tinyurl.com/3y29v2
>
> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.

Both of those are inexpensive, but neither is "no nonsense": the
first has suspension forks, the second folds in two. Each of those
features adds to the feature list and things money has been spent
on but doesn't necessarily give you more.

Suspension sounds good on paper but it costs Real Money (TM) to do
it /well/ (i.e., at least as much as the whole bike costs in this
case). So what you'll get is something that sucks out power and is
something extra to go wrong for minimal actual benefit.
Similarly, a fold means spending money on good engineering to avoid
compromising the bike, and you're spending very little money here
so it won't be good engineering.

I'd avoid any sort of suspension, disc brakes or folds if you want
a "basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike". Luggage racks and
mudguards are not nonsense, they greatly enhance the practical
value. Though obviously if you never carry anything on a rack,
it's money down the drain (but if you do carry anything a rack
makes a lot of sense, far more than a rucksack IMHO).

What folk have said about buying from a Real Bike Shop, they're right!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-01-31 18:05:28 skrev <[email protected]>:
>
>
> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.


Get a second hand bike with internal hub gears.

For new bikes, 'no-nonsense' and 'inexpensive' are unfortunately mutually
exclusive. A good sensible bike for transportation costs 5000 SEK where I
live, which is 370 UK pounds. It will last a lifetime and be tremendously
useful. You might find a cheaper one for 250 pounds, and that will still
be a sensible bike, though simpler lights, and you might not get the
virtually maintenance-free hub gear.

You could spend less, but I suspect you will run into trouble of some
sort, and probably end up spending more in the long run, as well as find
things to be a pain in general.

As others have said, go to a real bike shop, not a department store.

Erik Sandblom
--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Don Whybrow]

[email protected] wrote:
> I'm an adult, not a child.
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>
> I'm considering this one
> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl
>
> Or this folding one
> http://tinyurl.com/3y29v2
>
> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Thanks.
>

As others have said - get thee to your bike shoppe. Tell us where you
live and it is likely that a good one could be recommended.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.

 

[wafflycat]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm an adult, not a child.
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>
> I'm considering this one
> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl
>
> Or this folding one
> http://tinyurl.com/3y29v2
>
> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Thanks.
>

As others have said - not recommended. It's a false economy buying a *cheap*
bike from somewhere that isn't a bike shop. Honest. Saying that you don't
have to spend a fortune to get a basic, decent, serviceable steed for the
kind of use you are saying you are.

Look at

http://www.southcoastbikes.co.uk/Articles.asp?article=NO_BSO

It'll explain why you get a negative reaction to *cheap* as opposed to good
value.

Hope it helps.

 

[Great Eastern]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> So what you'll get is something that sucks out power and is something
> extra to go wrong for minimal actual benefit.


Saw an amusing sight earlier as I was walking through the town, this guy
rides past me on one of those weird shaped bikes with rear suspension.
(it was nothing special)

He was clearly struggling to accelerate and as he went around the
roundabout the problem was evident - his peddling was resulting in more
bobbing up and down on the rear spring than turning the back wheel!

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

>
> I'm an adult, not a child.
>
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.
>
> I'm considering this one
> http://tinyurl.com/36ukxl

Don't. Suspension forks are not a good thing until you're spending much
more money than this. Raleigh are not a good make any longer, either.

> Or this folding one
> http://tinyurl.com/3y29v2

Again, don't. Heavy, doesn't fold well, poor quality.

> I want a basic, inexpensive, no nonsense bike.

Claud Butler Classic, £200 list, discounted down to £180:
http://www.falconcycles.co.uk/CORP/cb/classicM.html#
Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op's Revolution Trailfinder, £229:
http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=22634

Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op now have branches in Aberdeen, Newcastle, Leeds and
Manchester as well as Edinburgh.

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

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

 

[Mike Causer]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:53:32 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:


> Suspension sounds good on paper but it costs Real Money (TM) to do
> it /well/ (i.e., at least as much as the whole bike costs in this
> case).

Having advised against suspension in this very thread, now I'm going to
contradict myself. You can can get very effective fully suspended
bikes for very little money; that is 50 to 100 quid. You just have to put
up with the inconveniences of 40+ year old bikes (steel rims, 4-speed S-A
gears, cottered cranks, etc). But they are soooo nice to ride once sorted
out (& Brooks saddle added, etc).

Today (& all this week so far) I was on my 24 year old fully suspended
bike. From what I can tell, even in its 20,000km plus condition, it's
still worth almost what I paid for it in 1983. But as that's in Peter's
Real Money (TM) range I won't say what a carefully spent 400 smackers
could buy.



Mike

 

[John B]

Great Eastern wrote:

>
> Saw an amusing sight earlier as I was walking through the town, this guy
> rides past me on one of those weird shaped bikes with rear suspension.
> (it was nothing special)
>
> He was clearly struggling to accelerate and as he went around the
> roundabout the problem was evident - his peddling was resulting in more
> bobbing up and down on the rear spring than turning the back wheel!

I led a ride out last year that had two ladies who must have been nigh on
20 stone each. Both were perched upon small brand new cheapo 'mountain'
bikes, complete with the full monty cheese suspension.
They must have bounced a good 6 inches on each pedal revolution.
After a couple of miles they were complaining of saddle-soreness.

As a young child on the ride innocently announced - "Its cos the seat keeps
whacking yer bum" ;-)

John B

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Cliffe
[email protected] says...

> 1) Unless you know what you are doing, buy a bike from a bicycle shop. A
> bike shop will be able to carry out any repairs or adjustments. That rules
> out Argos, Tesco, ToysRus and cheap mail order places.

You forgot Halfords.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Causer
[email protected]lid says...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:53:32 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> > Suspension sounds good on paper but it costs Real Money (TM) to do
> > it /well/ (i.e., at least as much as the whole bike costs in this
> > case).
>
> Having advised against suspension in this very thread, now I'm going to
> contradict myself. You can can get very effective fully suspended
> bikes for very little money; that is 50 to 100 quid. You just have to put
> up with the inconveniences of 40+ year old bikes (steel rims, 4-speed S-A
> gears, cottered cranks, etc). But they are soooo nice to ride once sorted
> out (& Brooks saddle added, etc).
>
But those small wheels are no good ...

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Cliffe
> [email protected] says...
>
>> 1) Unless you know what you are doing, buy a bike from a bicycle
>> shop. A bike shop will be able to carry out any repairs or
>> adjustments. That rules out Argos, Tesco, ToysRus and cheap mail
>> order places.
>
> You forgot Halfords.

Deliberately left out Halfords because they vary, as do several other
national chains (Evans, EBC, ActionBikes are names which spring to my mind).
The big separation between the list quoted above is that Halfords offer to
service bikes.
That variation depends on the local staff (much like any proper local bike
shop). The best shops have staff who do care, setup bikes correctly, advise
sensibly. The worst are terrible. Much the same as locally owned bike
shops, some are bad, others are excellent. Without listing every shop in
the land, its hard to generalise.



- Nigel




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[POHB]

On 31 Jan, 17:05, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm looking for an inexpensive first bike for occasional short
> transport use, not sport. An alternative to walking, you could say.

Try before you buy, the shop should let you test ride a few. Size is
important, and little things like getting the saddle to the right
height make all the difference.
For transport use a rack is invaluable, don't worry about proper bags
or panniers at first, you can bungee a rucksack to it.
Don't forget to budget for lights and a lock.

 

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:55:08 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]>
wrote:

<snip>
>
>Deliberately left out Halfords because they vary, as do several other
>national chains (Evans, EBC, ActionBikes are names which spring to my mind).
>The big separation between the list quoted above is that Halfords offer to
>service bikes.
>That variation depends on the local staff (much like any proper local bike
>shop). The best shops have staff who do care, setup bikes correctly, advise
>sensibly. The worst are terrible. Much the same as locally owned bike
>shops, some are bad, others are excellent. Without listing every shop in
>the land, its hard to generalise.
>
AIUI, ActionBikes is (are?) a franchise operation, so the caveats
about local staff apply even more. The one in the town where I work
was really bad, staffed by people devoid of clue and lasted about 6
months.

The one in the town where I live is much better, traded for about 3
years under the Action Bikes brand, then the manager/franchisee bought
himself out of the deal. It's now trading as a separate company, under
a new name but run by the same people.


Mind you I did have to explain about fixed wheel bikes to him the
other day.


Tim