Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?



R

raisethe

Guest
To balance things up, here are some reasons to buy a cheap bike:

1. You've taken a weeks leave and your main bike needs a part that
requires ordering, so get a budget bike to save wasting the holiday.

2. For the cash-strapped, to avoid taking out a loan, then replacing
wonky bits when the funds become available.

3. Because you will only use the bike once a year.

4. Because you are buying it for someone else.

5. Because you want an economical spare bike as long term cover for
your main bike.

6. It only costs £140 and it has a 7005 al frame with good welds.

7. It can be used for a novice mechanic to hone new skills before
putting them into practice on the main bike.

8. To see if cycling is for you.
 
P

Pedro Bonillo

Guest
"Ken Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just
> using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.
>
> What I still don't understand is, what are the advantages of
> sophisticated, expensive bikes? Parts last longer, the weight is lower,
> I understand that. But besides that, why can I go faster with a 2,000 $
> bike than with a 200 $ bike?
>
> I read that it responds better because it is well built. Of course, if
> it really has more gears, that makes a difference. But if gears are the
> same, it's gonna be the same energy I put in, so why should I get a
> higher speed out of it?
>
> To come down to the point, assuming the same weight, the same type of
> tyres and amount of gears, why can I go faster with a high quality
> bike?
>
> If you have any ideas, please share your thoughts with me. Thank you so
> much.
>
> Ken Aston
>

How about Folding bikes? Dahon for example, They seem to have a lot of
science behind them and the component even on entry level models are good
quality.

Pedro
 
P

pyfd

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Chris Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > That's a good article - but I really wish they'd finish the other
> > article "How to get a good bike on a budget" referenced in the first;
> > just to help drive the point home.

>
>
> Apparently it might be online in month or two. I was quoting that
> article so often I e-mailed the shop to praise it and ask when the next
> bit will be up.
> I take it the author is letting running his bike shop get in the way
> of writing it :)


Yes Hi Chris,

Things have been very busy down here. Many bikes to fix and almost
complete launch of our new venture - www.specialbike.co.uk. Watch out
for the press release very soon.

Hope to write that follow up article in Jan during a quiet patch. Been
working on it in my head though.

I've noticed recently that you can sometimes find very good new bikes
in the £200 range but you've really got to know what to look for.
Set-up is as important. Riding a poorly set-up bike is not only not
enjoyable, but worse for the bike as well, no matter how expensive it
was.

Paul
www.southcoastbikes.co.uk
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> To balance things up, here are some reasons to buy a cheap bike:
>
> 1. You've taken a weeks leave and your main bike needs a part that
> requires ordering, so get a budget bike to save wasting the holiday.


Rent.

> 2. For the cash-strapped, to avoid taking out a loan, then replacing
> wonky bits when the funds become available.


This is an argument for buying a low-end Cannondale at £700 vs buying a
high end Cannondale at £3,000. It isn't an argument for buying a £70 (or
even £140) pile of **** over buying a £500 bike. If the basic chassis
isn't good, no amount of upgrading parts is going to make it good.

> 3. Because you will only use the bike once a year.


Rent.

> 4. Because you are buying it for someone else...


....and you hate them.

> 5. Because you want an economical spare bike as long term cover for
> your main bike.


That's what your old bike is for.

> 6. It only costs £140 and it has a 7005 al frame with good welds.


[sigh] There's more to a bike than good welds.

> 7. It can be used for a novice mechanic to hone new skills before
> putting them into practice on the main bike.


That's what your old bike is for.

> 8. To see if cycling is for you.


Rent.

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

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
raisethe wrote:
> To balance things up, here are some reasons to buy a cheap bike:

<snip>
> 8. To see if cycling is for you.


The problem with this is it can end up with, "I tried cycling but it was
a bit grim. The bike was so heavy and the tyres rumbled all the time,
it was really hard work just to get anywhere. So I'm back in the car
now, cycling wasn't for me."

Really cheap gaspipe clunkers give a bad impression of what cycling is
like on a half-decent bike.

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/
 
J

John Hearns

Guest
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:29:03 -0800, Ken Aston wrote:

> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and it
> made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am just using a
> cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.


Resistance of the bearings and better wheels.

Not a valid comparison in this context, but out on bike runs I often find
myself cruising downhill past other people on hybrids. I have a cheapish
road bike, but blow the tyres up hard. I like to think that part of the
difference is the wheels have decent quality hubs.
On a nice bike, you can just sit and zoom downhill with surprisingly
little resistance.
 
J

John Hearns

Guest
Maybe not a good comparison, but think about shopping for a television.
You go down to your local department store to look at the range on offer,
all wired in to showing programmes or maybe a DVD movie.
You Ooh and Ahh over the top-of-the-range huge flatscreen Sony,
because it has a stunning picture quality and the sound as those
X-fighters flash by makes the ground shake.
But the price tag makes you think twice.
You look at the flatscreens by companies like LG etc., and they look quite
nice and the size is in reality a bit better for your living room.
You look at the conventional televisions, widescreen with flat front
tubes.
Finally in the corner you spot really cheap portable models, from
manufacturers you've never heard of. They use wire loop aerials, can be
run off batteries in a caravan and have tubes which look like a fishbowl.
But they're dead cheap.

I'd hazard a guess that you won't carry home a cheap portable set (unless
you live in a caravan).
 
M

Mark McNeill

Guest
Response to John Hearns:
> Maybe not a good comparison, but think about shopping for a television.
> You go down to your local department store to look at the range on offer,
> all wired in to showing programmes or maybe a DVD movie.
> You Ooh and Ahh over the top-of-the-range huge flatscreen Sony,
> because it has a stunning picture quality and the sound as those
> X-fighters flash by makes the ground shake.
> But the price tag makes you think twice.
> You look at the flatscreens by companies like LG etc., and they look quite
> nice and the size is in reality a bit better for your living room.
> You look at the conventional televisions, widescreen with flat front
> tubes.
> Finally in the corner you spot really cheap portable models, from
> manufacturers you've never heard of. They use wire loop aerials, can be
> run off batteries in a caravan and have tubes which look like a fishbowl.
> But they're dead cheap.
>
> I'd hazard a guess that you won't carry home a cheap portable set (unless
> you live in a caravan).



Ar. We're shopping for a new shower cubicle ATM, and the first one we
saw at the builders' merchants was a Special Limited Offer, and very
tempting; until we saw the decent-quality one at twice the price round
the corner. At that point I was reminded of the cheap-bike threads
here, and remembered that in all the fields I know something about, if
you want an easy life the one thing you /don't/ do is buy a no-name
product which is half the price of all the others.

As Royce [or was it Rolls?] said, quality is remembered long after the
price is forgotten.


--
Mark, UK
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no
God."
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
In news:p[email protected],
John Hearns <[email protected]> scribed:

> Resistance of the bearings and better wheels.
>
> Not a valid comparison in this context, but out on bike runs I often
> find myself cruising downhill past other people on hybrids. I have a
> cheapish road bike, but blow the tyres up hard. I like to think that
> part of the difference is the wheels have decent quality hubs.
> On a nice bike, you can just sit and zoom downhill with surprisingly
> little resistance.


Weight?

On the Upper Thames 200 last Saturday there were three Tricen - my XXL and a
couple of the less expensive variety. Although Mr. Fleming's machine
sported a front fairing, I was still quicker down the hills than him, as he
is a skinny so-and-so. Mr. Forrest was even faster than me - Vmax 80 km/h
to my 77.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.
 
P

Pete Biggs

Guest
John Hearns wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:29:03 -0800, Ken Aston wrote:
>
>> Recently, I have been using my bike more and more and by now I almost
>> stopped using any other way of transportation. It's a lot of fun and
>> it made me think about buying a really nice bike. Right now I am
>> just using a cheap discount bike which is quite heavy.

>
> Resistance of the bearings and better wheels.
>
> Not a valid comparison in this context, but out on bike runs I often
> find myself cruising downhill past other people on hybrids. I have a
> cheapish road bike, but blow the tyres up hard. I like to think that
> part of the difference is the wheels have decent quality hubs.
> On a nice bike, you can just sit and zoom downhill with surprisingly
> little resistance.


When the riders aren't lighter than you, I'd say that's down to aerodynamics
and tyre rolling resistance.

Turn the cheap bike upside down and spin the bog standard front wheel.
It'll carry on spinning for ages if it's adjusted properly, meaning the
amount of bearing drag is minute and couldn't possibly be noticed when
cycling. In fact some expensive hubs have more drag than cheap ones due to
tighter seals.

Once past the cheap /and nasty/ end of the market, nowdays, I think the
functionality and durability differences between inexpensive and expensive
bikes is over-rated and most of the extra money really goes on just making
the bike lighter. Sometimes durability is actually poorer - for example
when aluminium chainrings are used instead of steel ones. And functional
advantages tend to be little twiddly extras - which are worth having, but
don't really make a major difference to the actual cycling, IMHO.

~PB
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> 5. Because you want an economical spare bike as long term cover for
>> your main bike.

>
>That's what your old bike is for.


But you might want such a bike when buying your first main bike.


>> 7. It can be used for a novice mechanic to hone new skills before
>> putting them into practice on the main bike.

>
>That's what your old bike is for.


Again, assumes you already have an old bike. And that you are prepared
to have it out of action while your novice skills mean doing something
takes a long time to get right.
And if the new skill you want to practice is, for example, cutting it
up and welding it into a tandem or recumbent, that you are prepared to
lose it as a standard bike forever.

And add
9. Because you want to use it somewhere that unattractiveness to thieves
outweighs its unattractiveness in use.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> >> 5. Because you want an economical spare bike as long term cover for
> >> your main bike.

> >
> >That's what your old bike is for.

>
> But you might want such a bike when buying your first main bike.
>

Unlikely - people usually buy a basic bike, find they like it and /then/
spend more on a better machine, keeping the other one as a hack. Or buy
two decent bikes, perhaps one for commuting and one for off-road or
racing.
>
> >> 7. It can be used for a novice mechanic to hone new skills before
> >> putting them into practice on the main bike.

> >
> >That's what your old bike is for.

>
> Again, assumes you already have an old bike. And that you are prepared
> to have it out of action while your novice skills mean doing something
> takes a long time to get right.


Buy an old nail and transform it into a faithful hack bike. Although
that will probably require more mechanical ability than just keeping the
best bike in good fettle, that's preferable if the aim is to acquire
skills.

> And if the new skill you want to practice is, for example, cutting it
> up and welding it into a tandem or recumbent, that you are prepared to
> lose it as a standard bike forever.


Pull something off the tip. I think it's unlikely that someone would
attempt this sort of thing if they didn't already have some basic
metalwork and design skills anyway.
>
> And add
> 9. Because you want to use it somewhere that unattractiveness to thieves
> outweighs its unattractiveness in use.
>

So get a second-hand mechanically-sound mid-range bike with a nasty
paint job.
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>
>Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> >
>> >> 5. Because you want an economical spare bike as long term cover for
>> >> your main bike.
>> >
>> >That's what your old bike is for.

>>
>> But you might want such a bike when buying your first main bike.
>>

>Unlikely - people usually buy a basic bike, find they like it and /then/
>spend more on a better machine


But Simon had already said that finding out whether you like it is not a
good excuse for buying a cheap bike in the first place.


>> >That's what your old bike is for.

>>
>> Again, assumes you already have an old bike. And that you are prepared
>> to have it out of action while your novice skills mean doing something
>> takes a long time to get right.

>
>Buy an old nail and transform it into a faithful hack bike.


So, that's a good reason to buy a cheap bike then, assuming I'm guessing
correctly what you mean by "an old nail".


>> And if the new skill you want to practice is, for example, cutting it
>> up and welding it into a tandem or recumbent, that you are prepared to
>> lose it as a standard bike forever.

>
>Pull something off the tip.


Again, a good reason to buy a cheap bike then. (Two or three quid from
my local tip^W recycling centre.)


>> And add
>> 9. Because you want to use it somewhere that unattractiveness to thieves
>> outweighs its unattractiveness in use.
>>

>So get a second-hand mechanically-sound mid-range bike with a nasty
>paint job.


Again, a good reason to buy a cheap bike then.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>
> >Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 5. Because you want an economical spare bike as long term cover for
> >> >> your main bike.
> >> >
> >> >That's what your old bike is for.
> >>
> >> But you might want such a bike when buying your first main bike.
> >>

> >Unlikely - people usually buy a basic bike, find they like it and /then/
> >spend more on a better machine

>
> But Simon had already said that finding out whether you like it is not a
> good excuse for buying a cheap bike in the first place.
>

Maybe not, but that's what many people do, and once they get
enthusiastic they get a better bike so they already have the old one as
a spare, which is what point 5 was about.
>
> >> >That's what your old bike is for.
> >>
> >> Again, assumes you already have an old bike. And that you are prepared
> >> to have it out of action while your novice skills mean doing something
> >> takes a long time to get right.

> >
> >Buy an old nail and transform it into a faithful hack bike.

>
> So, that's a good reason to buy a cheap bike then, assuming I'm guessing
> correctly what you mean by "an old nail".
>

If you want to learn how to fix a bike you might as well get one that's
broken to start with - that's hardly a typical reason for buying a bike
though.
>
> >> And if the new skill you want to practice is, for example, cutting it
> >> up and welding it into a tandem or recumbent, that you are prepared to
> >> lose it as a standard bike forever.

> >
> >Pull something off the tip.

>
> Again, a good reason to buy a cheap bike then. (Two or three quid from
> my local tip^W recycling centre.)
>

Again hardly typical - the vast majority of people will buy a bike to
ride, not as a donor for an engineering project.
>
> >> And add
> >> 9. Because you want to use it somewhere that unattractiveness to thieves
> >> outweighs its unattractiveness in use.
> >>

> >So get a second-hand mechanically-sound mid-range bike with a nasty
> >paint job.

>
> Again, a good reason to buy a cheap bike then.
>

I thought we were talking about a cheap /new/ bike, I have no problem
with acquiring used stuff at bargain prices, but I know how to fix stuff
so it works properly - many people don't seem to be able to tell that a
bike needs work doing, let alone how to do it.
 
T

The Blue Frog

Guest
Aheadset bearings are secured 'square on' (not screwed down) and take modern
sprung forks--if you look at bikes in a park the really cheap ones don't
have aheadset. (Maybe racer type bikes don't?) Aheadset & V-Brakes were an
improvement--now disc brakes (another reason to get aheadset) which if
hydraulic are brilliant.



"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The Blue Frog wrote:
>> Don't forget the higher quality bikes have Aheadset steering which is a
>> better design and much easier to maintain. I'd go for a second hand
>> quality brand (Marin/Giant/etc) rather than a new one--then it's worth
>> replacing parts with good quality as they wear out.

>
> Somewhat spurious: there's no shortage of very good bikes out there
> without aheadsets. It certainly doesn't make you go any quicker, and I
> don't see much point in retrofitting aheadset to an older bike.
>
> 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]ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
The Blue Frog wrote:
> Aheadset bearings are secured 'square on' (not screwed down) and take
> modern sprung forks--


My recumbent tourer has sprung forks and doesn't have an aheadset. The
two aren't completely exclusive. The current version of the same bike
has an aheadset and they do seem to be superior, granted, but not to the
point where ICBA to do anything about it on the existing machine.

> Aheadset &
> V-Brakes were an improvement--now disc brakes (another reason to get
> aheadset) which if hydraulic are brilliant.


Though if you're not in the mud they're not /that/ much, if any, better
than hydraulic rim brakes. I've got HS-33s hydraulics on that recumbent
tourer and they're /very/ good, just as good as the hydraulic discs on
my wife's IMHO. They have the disadvantage of wearing the rim over
time, but OTOH it's easier to assess wear and change pads. I've read
that trials riders prefer them to discs as they offer better fine
control, acting on a larger effective disc, though that's not something
I've any experience of.

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/
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, The Blue Frog
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Aheadset bearings are secured 'square on' (not screwed down) and take
> modern sprung forks--if you look at bikes in a park the really cheap ones
> don't
> have aheadset. (Maybe racer type bikes don't?) Aheadset & V-Brakes were
> an improvement--now disc brakes (another reason to get aheadset) which if
> hydraulic are brilliant.


While hydraulic brakes are indeed better, disk brakes are no benefit at all
on a road bike and actually weaken the wheels.

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

Error 1109: There is no message for this error
 
S

Sirius631

Guest
Peter Fox wrote:
> Easy!
> Cheap bikes are made for a price.
> Better bikes are made for a purpose.
>


Even worse - cheap bikes are made to sell to people who can't afford
it. Basically, it is a legal way of robbing them.

David
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:12:57 -0000, The Blue Frog <[email protected]> wrote:

> Aheadset & V-Brakes were an
> improvement--now disc brakes (another reason to get aheadset) which if
> hydraulic are brilliant.


Eh?

I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why eitehr V-brakes or disk
brakes requires having an aheadset. Why do you regard brakes as being
a reason for favouring an aheadset?

Disk brakes aren't a reason to get an aheadset.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Thu, 09 Nov, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> While hydraulic brakes are indeed better, disk brakes are no
> benefit at all on a road bike and actually weaken the wheels.


Lower maintenance. My disk-equipped road-going bike requires about 3
hands fewer to adjust, and 4 hands fewer to change, the brake pads.
Even were I equipped with that many hands, the disks would still be
easier to change and adjust pads.

I think my disk braked wheels are less susceptible to wet weather than
my rim-braked wheels.

Less wear. I have no expectation of ever replacing the rims on my
disk-braked wheels. My rim-braked commuting wheels needed a new rim
every few (four-ish?) years of daily use.

Marginally quicker wheel-removals for purposes of fixing punctures by
the side of the road. Less cursing to release the brake cable to get
the tyre past the brakes.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 

Similar threads