Upgrading a cheap road bike

[Tim Downie]

Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I went
out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club the other day
and enjoyed it greatly.

Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)

The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy frame so
I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've heard that I
might be better off upgrading the wheels first.

Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?

Tim

 

[Pete Biggs]

Tim Downie wrote:
> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I
> went out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club
> the other day and enjoyed it greatly.
>
> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>
> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy
> frame so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've
> heard that I might be better off upgrading the wheels first.

What make & model are the existing wheel rims?

If not replacing the whole bike, unless the rims are particularly heavy I
would upgrade the forks with something like ITM Spider. Headset and stem
would also need changing for threadless forks.

~PB

 

[bugbear]

Tim Downie wrote:
> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I went
> out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club the other day
> and enjoyed it greatly.
>
> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>
> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy frame so
> I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've heard that I
> might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
>
> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?

I'd leave it alone, and enjoy riding it.

You don't seem to have any purpose in mind with upgrading,
or perceive (yourself) any particular problems
with the bike, other than the existence of better
bikes.

BugBear

 

[bookieb]

Tim Downie wrote:
> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I went
> out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club the other day
> and enjoyed it greatly.
>
> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>
> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy frame so
> I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've heard that I
> might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
>
> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?
>
> Tim

Be wary of setting out on the upgrade path!
It's very easy to spend X on a fork, 2X on wheels, X on new handlebars,
X on carbon seatpin and new saddle, and then find that 5x = better part
of cost of new bike with all those parts on it.
Beyond the "good basic" level, each additional £100 you spend brings
more and more bling points, but possibly less and less actual benefit.
A reasonable beginners "club racing" machine can be put together/bought
for £600 - eg Giant OCR series bikes.

I'd start by checking that the bike is currently in good mechanical
order - i.e. it goes, stops well, changes gears smoothly, nothing is
worn out or currently broken. If not, start with sorting that stuff
out so that it's safe and reliable.

I'd then spend a couple of weeks getting the bike fit right. This might
take some new parts (stem/saddle/handlebars/whatever), but unless
you're an odd size or shape, or the bike is genuinely the wrong size
for you, it'll probably just take adjustments to what you've got.
There's lots of places on the web that can give advice on how to do
this.

Once this stuff is done, most of us find that the weakest link on the
bike is the engine, and it remains that way for quite a while. Even if
you intend to buy a new bike or some upgrades, I'd encourage you to get
this far before going shopping. It won't cost much (any?) money to do,
and you'll have a good idea of what you want fit-wise when you do hit
the shops.

Changing the fork might take off about 1lb. weight, but that's about
it. This won't make a huge difference to speed (greatest theoretical
difference is to make climbing a bit easier). Some people find a
carbon fork/bars/stem/seatpost makes the bike more comfortable and
seems to kill off "road buzz". I haven't noticed any huge differences
myself.

The accepted wisdom is that taking 1lb off the rotating parts of the
bike (wheels/tyres) is worth 2-4lb off the rest of the bike. I'd agree
with that.

I'd suggest attacking performance upgrades in the following order:
1. Fit of bike.
2. Brakes (again, may require new pads/cables, but may just need
setting up correctly)
3. Pedals/Shoes (Clipless system, if you're not already using them).
4. Tyres.
5. Wheels.
6. Anything else.

3 and 4 could/should be reversed.

This order has the advantage that you're doing the cheaper/easier stuff
first, and it's easy to bring any new bits (shoes, pedals, tyres,
wheels etc) with you to a new bike.

There are specific things that triathletes like their bikes to have, if
that's the direction you're going, principally saddle set right
forwards (possibly using a seatpost with no or even negative setback),
and aerobars. Your clubmates should are a good place to start for this
advice.

hth,

bookieb

 

[Paul - xxx]

Tim Downie came up with the following;:
> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I went
> out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club the other
> day and enjoyed it greatly.
>
> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>
> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy frame
> so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've heard that I
> might be better off upgrading the wheels first.

Depends why you want to upgrade it and what you expect from any upgrades,
really. I'd ride it 'as is' for a few more meetings first. Apollo is quite
a down-market brand and upgrades might not be easily workable. Any upgrades
you do might not have the benefits you want.

Personally, I'd save up for a better frame/cycle rather than spending money
on stuff that might be an upgrade for the apollo, but might still be a
downgrade for a better specified other make of bicycle.

Having said that, generally, upgrading wheels first gives the biggest 'bang
per buck', depending upon what you're upgrading from and to.

Getting yourself fitter and simply putting the miles in will do a lot more
than a few quid spent on upgrades.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[David E. Belcher]

bookieb wrote:

> Be wary of setting out on the upgrade path!
> It's very easy to spend X on a fork, 2X on wheels, X on new handlebars,
> X on carbon seatpin and new saddle, and then find that 5x = better part
> of cost of new bike with all those parts on it.

Although you can upgrade an existing machine in piecemeal fashion as
slowly as you like, compared to buying a new bike and paying in
instalments to suit the bike shop's/finance company's timescale and
rates.


> Changing the fork might take off about 1lb. weight, but that's about
> it. This won't make a huge difference to speed (greatest theoretical
> difference is to make climbing a bit easier). Some people find a
> carbon fork/bars/stem/seatpost makes the bike more comfortable and
> seems to kill off "road buzz". I haven't noticed any huge differences
> myself.

I went from a Columbus SLX steel fork to a Time Sprint carbon fibre one
(with Cr-Mo steel steerer) and have noticed a marked difference in
weight & handling; admittedly, the latter may be down to design
differences - in particular the rake of the forks.

> I'd suggest attacking performance upgrades in the following order:
> 1. Fit of bike.
> 2. Brakes (again, may require new pads/cables, but may just need
> setting up correctly)
> 3. Pedals/Shoes (Clipless system, if you're not already using them).
> 4. Tyres.
> 5. Wheels.
> 6. Anything else.
>
> 3 and 4 could/should be reversed.

I'd do 3 & 4 in the order originally typed; tyres will be a cheaper
upgrade (even a pair of pro-level Michelins or Contis will be under the
60 quid mark), and if still not happy, then it's time to start saving
up for the fancy wheels.

> There are specific things that triathletes like their bikes to have, if
> that's the direction you're going, principally saddle set right
> forwards (possibly using a seatpost with no or even negative setback),

Negative setback? Are we talking about posts like those funny Thomson
ones with a forward-leaning "kink" in them?

David Belcher

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I
> went out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club the
> other day and enjoyed it greatly.
>
> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>
> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy
> frame so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've
> heard that I might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
>
> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?

I've had Apollos, when much younger. In fact I've ridden many thousands
of miles on them. I don't have one now, but that's because I can afford
prettier things.

I'd start with carbon forks, because carbon forks make a huge difference
to the comfort of the bike. I'd next look at thinks which didn't work
too well. I'd next look at where I could get most weight off. Both those
things might lead o a carefull look at the crankset area - cheap
cranksets are heavy and tend to flex. But wheels are definitely worth
thinking about. Both Mavic and Campagnolo do low-cost wheelsets which
are pretty good, or consider getting wheels built for you (or building
your own).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

 

[bookieb]

David E. Belcher wrote:
> bookieb wrote:
>
<snip>
> I went from a Columbus SLX steel fork to a Time Sprint carbon fibre one
> (with Cr-Mo steel steerer) and have noticed a marked difference in
> weight & handling; admittedly, the latter may be down to design
> differences - in particular the rake of the forks.
>

Absolutely. I just get a bit ticked off at what I see in the cycling
press, eg stuff along the lines of "the ride was a bit harsh, but a
carbon seatpost could improve that" etc. There's some kind of
talismatic belief that carbon == smooth. IMO (emphasis on the O bit),
any component like bars, stem, seatpost, saddle rails etc would want to
be pretty bloody whippy before it's have an effect greater than letting
10lbs of preassure out of the tyres. If you want to save some weight,
cool.
If you want some bling points, cool too.
If you want a softer ide, with less road buzz, trade in the 23s for 25s
and run 'em a bit softer.


>
> > There are specific things that triathletes like their bikes to have, if
> > that's the direction you're going, principally saddle set right
> > forwards (possibly using a seatpost with no or even negative setback),
>
> Negative setback? Are we talking about posts like those funny Thomson
> ones with a forward-leaning "kink" in them?

....or the remarkably similar ones with a backward kink turned back to
front.
Yep, those ones, but "setforward" just sounds odd to me.
Short distance TT racers and triathletes seem to like being further
forward - I read the suggestion that it made the transition from bike
-> run easier on the hamstrings for the triathletes, dunno if that's
correct though.


regards,

bookieb.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Absolutely. I just get a bit ticked off at what I see in the cycling
> press, eg stuff along the lines of "the ride was a bit harsh, but a
> carbon seatpost could improve that" etc. There's some kind of
> talismatic belief that carbon == smooth. IMO (emphasis on the O bit),
> any component like bars, stem, seatpost, saddle rails etc would want to
> be pretty bloody whippy before it's have an effect greater than letting
> 10lbs of preassure out of the tyres.

In my experience, you're far wrong. My carbon bike with 23mm tyres at
120psi is a much more comfortable ride with much less buzz than my steel
bike currently with 28mm tyres at 90psi. Mind you, it's a better bike,
and comparing a really good carbon bike with a relatively poor (Reynolds
501) steel one is a bit unfair. Nevertheless, carbon == smooth, or at
least much better vibration damping. Believe it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.

 

[Tim Downie]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Tim Downie
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I
>> went out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club
>> the other day and enjoyed it greatly.
>>
>> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>>
>> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy
>> frame so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've
>> heard that I might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
>>
>> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?
>
> I've had Apollos, when much younger. In fact I've ridden many
> thousands of miles on them. I don't have one now, but that's because
> I can afford prettier things.
>
> I'd start with carbon forks, because carbon forks make a huge
> difference to the comfort of the bike. I'd next look at thinks which
> didn't work too well. I'd next look at where I could get most weight
> off. Both those things might lead o a carefull look at the crankset
> area - cheap cranksets are heavy and tend to flex. But wheels are
> definitely worth thinking about. Both Mavic and Campagnolo do
> low-cost wheelsets which are pretty good, or consider getting wheels
> built for you (or building your own).

Cheers Simon. I was beginning to think that nobody here understood that you
don't actually need a good or logical reason to upgrade, you can just do it
for the pleasure of slowly adapting a bike to suit oneself and cost be
damned.

The chainset may not be light but I don't think I've got a problem with
flexing, gear changing even under load is really smooth so I'll leave that
alone for now.

Tim

 

[Tim Downie]

bugbear wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I went
>> out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon
>> club the other day and enjoyed it greatly.
>>
>> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>>
>> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy
>> frame so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've
>> heard that I might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
>>
>> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?
>
> I'd leave it alone, and enjoy riding it.
>
> You don't seem to have any purpose in mind with upgrading,
> or perceive (yourself) any particular problems
> with the bike, other than the existence of better
> bikes.

You need a *reason* to upgrade? How about just for fun?

Tim

 

[wafflycat]

"bookieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Absolutely. I just get a bit ticked off at what I see in the cycling
> press, eg stuff along the lines of "the ride was a bit harsh, but a
> carbon seatpost could improve that" etc. There's some kind of
> talismatic belief that carbon == smooth. IMO (emphasis on the O bit),
> any component like bars, stem, seatpost, saddle rails etc would want to
> be pretty bloody whippy before it's have an effect greater than letting
> 10lbs of preassure out of the tyres. If you want to save some weight,
> cool.
> If you want some bling points, cool too.
> If you want a softer ide, with less road buzz, trade in the 23s for 25s
> and run 'em a bit softer.
>
>

Have to slightly disagree here. No doubt carbon can be *bling*

But it also does have a noticeable effect at giving a smoother ride.
Example. I have two Bianchis. One has bog-ordinary metal front forks, the
other has carbon forks. The carbon forks make a *noticeable* difference in
smoothness of ride. I love both those bikes, but the one with the carbon
forks does five a smoother ride.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Tim Downie]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
>> Whilst I'm resting a foot injury I've been doing a bit of cycling. I
>> went out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club
>> the other day and enjoyed it greatly.
>>
>> Of course, now I'm thinking about upgrades. ;-)
>>
>> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy
>> frame so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've
>> heard that I might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
>
> What make & model are the existing wheel rims?

Shining Etreo. 622x13 A-M5. Can't say Google throws up much about them
(other than it's what the Apollo was fitted with).

> If not replacing the whole bike, unless the rims are particularly
> heavy I would upgrade the forks with something like ITM Spider.
> Headset and stem would also need changing for threadless forks.

Cheers. I feel a trip to the LBS coming on.

TIm

 

[[email protected]]

Tim Downie wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>, Tim Downie
> > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> ...I went out on my Halfords Apollo tdf 100 with my local triathlon club
> >> the other day and enjoyed it greatly....
> >> The apollo rides well enough but has heavy steel forks on an alloy
> >> frame so I'm thinking of perhaps getting some carbon forks but I've
> >> heard that I might be better off upgrading the wheels first.
> >> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?
> >
> > I've had Apollos, when much younger. In fact I've ridden many
> > thousands of miles on them. I don't have one now, but that's because
> > I can afford prettier things.
> >
> > I'd start with carbon forks, because carbon forks make a huge
> > difference to the comfort of the bike. I'd next look at thinks which
> > didn't work too well. I'd next look at where I could get most weight
> > off. Both those things might lead o a carefull look at the crankset
> > area - cheap cranksets are heavy and tend to flex. But wheels are
> > definitely worth thinking about. Both Mavic and Campagnolo do
> > low-cost wheelsets which are pretty good, or consider getting wheels
> > built for you (or building your own).
>
> Cheers Simon. I was beginning to think that nobody here understood that you
> don't actually need a good or logical reason to upgrade, you can just do it
> for the pleasure of slowly adapting a bike to suit oneself and cost be
> damned.

but if logic, cost and reason don't apply, why ask for advice? If you
want to splash some money and flash the bike up a bit then surely
buying a magazine will be likely to offer your choices some external
validation since many bike mags are broadly there to sell advertising.
Don't get me wrong, I am not having a go at you for wanting to do it.
I am a sucker for gadgets too and sometimes I like to rationalise my
choices as well.

How about geting the frame resprayed? That will be a high impact
upgrade. Red is fastest. I am not wholly joking here.

best wishes
james

 

[Tim Downie]

[email protected] wrote:
> How about geting the frame resprayed? That will be a high impact
> upgrade. Red is fastest. I am not wholly joking here.

I can't. It's already named "Custard" to match up with my red bike called
"Rhubarb". It's got to stay yellow.

Who says I'm not logical?

Tim

 

[John Hearns]

>
> Anyone out there with an apollo? Which would you upgrade first?
Definitely a better set of wheels first.
I got a new wheelset from Decathlon and put them on my Claud Butler,
they did make a difference.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Tim Downie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>How about geting the frame resprayed? That will be a high impact
>>upgrade. Red is fastest. I am not wholly joking here.
>
>
> I can't. It's already named "Custard" to match up with my red bike called
> "Rhubarb". It's got to stay yellow.
>
> Who says I'm not logical?
>

Respray it to brown and call it "Crumble". Can't have rhubarb without
the crumble, that's not natural.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the
decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the
climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess
tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a
tool of torture, or an instrument of inspiration, I can
humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my
response that decides whether a crises is escalated or de-
escalated, and a person is humanized or de-humanized. If we
treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat
people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are
capable of becoming." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[David Martin]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Tim Downie wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>How about geting the frame resprayed? That will be a high impact
> >>upgrade. Red is fastest. I am not wholly joking here.
> >
> >
> > I can't. It's already named "Custard" to match up with my red bike called
> > "Rhubarb". It's got to stay yellow.
> >
> > Who says I'm not logical?
> >
>
> Respray it to brown and call it "Crumble". Can't have rhubarb without
> the crumble, that's not natural.

Respray? Just let it rust a bit..

...d

 

[Tim Downie]

David Martin wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Tim Downie wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about geting the frame resprayed? That will be a high impact
>>>> upgrade. Red is fastest. I am not wholly joking here.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't. It's already named "Custard" to match up with my red bike
>>> called "Rhubarb". It's got to stay yellow.
>>>
>>> Who says I'm not logical?
>>>
>>
>> Respray it to brown and call it "Crumble". Can't have rhubarb without
>> the crumble, that's not natural.
>
> Respray? Just let it rust a bit..

Could be a long wait for the frame to rust, it's alloy. The nearest thing
to "Crumble" on the bike is me. ;-)

Tim

 

[Nick Kew]

Don Whybrow wrote:

> Respray it to brown and call it "Crumble". Can't have rhubarb without
> the crumble, that's not natural.

Of course you can. Fool!

--
not me guv