How much for a decent bike?

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
pwa
Posts: 9020
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby pwa » 7 Jan 2019, 6:15am

I do reject the suggestion in the OP that bikes become out of date after a few years. They don't. They last as long as you look after them and are able to find spare parts. A good bike bought today should remain a good bike for ten years, possibly longer. The only exception to this is at the very elite end of cycle racing. And even there it seems unlikely that having a bike from five years ago would put you at a real disadvantage. Bikes should last.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 693
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Oldjohnw » 7 Jan 2019, 7:27am

I do reject the suggestion in the OP that bikes become out of date after a few years.


Is the suggestion because there might be marginal technical improvements always available on some models for which some always seem to feel the need, as with phones?

I have known manufacturers resolutely condemned because they refuse to keep tinkering, or are perhaps slow to introduce something which would immediately make existing models out of date in the eyes of some. But what do I know as very much a layman?
John

Cycling and recycling

Brucey
Posts: 32765
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Brucey » 7 Jan 2019, 8:06am

The utility cyclist wrote: …….NEVER feel guilty about pending the money......
[sic]

a Freudian slip?

It is certainly your business (and being so why go on about it...?) but if you have hocked yourself up to the eyeballs already, spending money that you don't really have on needlessly expensive bikes is rarely a good idea, no matter 'how good they make you feel' at the time.

Such talk of 'spending money to feel good' is the more the talk of addicts rather than that of pragmatists, IMV.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Canuk » 7 Jan 2019, 8:59am

I tend to agree with Utility Cyclist. The clubs i ride with at the weekend are quite varied, as are the bikes.

Some of the older guys have clearly just retired and have a lot of spare cash sloshing about and are intent on buying 'the last bike'. That's their business, and it's no one else's. Capitalism, however you frame it gives us choice. Perhaps too much choice, but I would never condemn someone else's spending choices, sympathise maybe, but not condemn.

A few old boys (70+) have gone out and bought the latest Look bikes with full electronic set ups and swish wheels. Bikes you wouldn't get any change out of 10k for. These aren't top flight competitive veterans, far from it, they just have the money and want the best they can get. This is much more prevalent in Europe than it is in the UK, its just a social trend: people like to spend more of their disposable income on keeping fit and healthy than they do elsewhere. Two years ago we were on Lake Como waiting on the ferry when about 50 club cyclists rolled off it, every single one on some variety of Colnago with the exception of a Pinarello and an older Look. They stopped at the cafe at the ferry so I got a good chance to ogle the bikes. Everything pristine, well lubed and elegant, including the riders. The age range was about 35-80.

Its just a different cycling culture. They wouldn't be seen dead on anything not 'haute de gamme'. Which brings me to another important point:fashion.

Some people are happy trolling about in shabby cargo pants and sneakers, wearing an old jacket to boot. They don't mind looking like S#it. For them clothing is just something to keep the cold out. Fair enough. Some people won't step out the door unless they're suited and booted, they like to look good. Same with bikes. I learned long ago it was daft to criticise people's choice in bicycles, or equipment. Like Eddy Merckx said, whether you ride a lot or a little, the important thing is just ride.

If spending on the latest and the best and the most expensive makes you happy, and makes you want to ride the bike more, ignore everyone else. Carry on regardless!

joshua3
Posts: 26
Joined: 17 Aug 2016, 2:37pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby joshua3 » 7 Jan 2019, 5:33pm

I tend to agree with what has already been said. I have just bought a couple of Reynolds 531C frames off Ebay, one a pure racing type (Graham Weigh) and the other a (built by F. W. Evans) tourer. The dearest was £85. I purchased a used wheelset for £40 and the other bits and pieces for even less. The Graham Weigh is now on the road and is the nicest bike I have ever ridden. Why spend more than a £200 or £300? Regards James

Airsporter1st
Posts: 561
Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Airsporter1st » 7 Jan 2019, 6:11pm

Brucey wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote: …….NEVER feel guilty about pending the money......
[sic]

a Freudian slip?

It is certainly your business (and being so why go on about it...?) but if you have hocked yourself up to the eyeballs already, spending money that you don't really have on needlessly expensive bikes is rarely a good idea, no matter 'how good they make you feel' at the time.

Such talk of 'spending money to feel good' is the more the talk of addicts rather than that of pragmatists, IMV.

cheers


Where on earth did that come from? I have read and re-read UC's post and don't see anything which refers to putting oneself in debt.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1989
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby The utility cyclist » 7 Jan 2019, 9:06pm

Brucey wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote: …….NEVER feel guilty about pending the money......
[sic]

a Freudian slip?

It is certainly your business (and being so why go on about it...?) but if you have hocked yourself up to the eyeballs already, spending money that you don't really have on needlessly expensive bikes is rarely a good idea, no matter 'how good they make you feel' at the time.

Such talk of 'spending money to feel good' is the more the talk of addicts rather than that of pragmatists, IMV.

cheers

You don't like others spending money you wouldn't and will happily tell everyone that you don't, we get that, you repeat it ad nauseam on this forum. You don't like what others buy if you don't personally agree with it or don't understand its function/limitations, again you repeat that again and again and rarely back up to justify your claims about others purchasing habits or wants/needs.

Only in your mind is something that costs X 'needless', only to you might spending x not a good idea. You have no idea how one persons purchase has an effect, people put goods, services etc on credit all the time they don't have the immediate funds for, this is part of human life, get over it already! Whether you approve or not, continually banging on about others spending habits gets a bit tedious frankly, it doesn't contribute to the discussion in the slightest.

And by the way, I've plenty of cash ta, I'm frugal, I like bargains but I like spending money on bikes, even if I have no real need for one I'l still buy one. If that makes me an addict, guilty. I can think of much worse habits to have than buying more bikes/more expensive bikes! :roll:

amediasatex
Posts: 629
Joined: 2 Nov 2015, 12:51pm
Location: Sunny Devon! just East of the Moor

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby amediasatex » 7 Jan 2019, 9:31pm

I am a bicycle (and bicycling) addict and I'm happy to admit it, I own far more bikes than is reasonable by any sensible measurement. Some of them are old, some are new, some were cheap and some certainly weren't. In the grand scheme of things though where people lease or buy brand new cars at incredible cost, literally p*ss money down the drain drinking posh cocktails in bars, buy (and then discard) phones each year at silly prices, and pay to slowly kill themselves with drugs, it's hard for even the most extravagant bicycle addict to feel too bad!

I don't begrudge anyone spending their money, even a lot of it, on bikes, but I do take issue when the rhetoric and marketing strays into telling people they need to spend lots of money because it causes elitism and discourages those who don't have as much money to spend. This also strays into being a little pessimistic when discussing 'performance' as well, many claims are wildly exaggerated and over-emphasised on the alter of persuading people to part with their cash. I'd much rather someone spend £X thousand because they simply want to ride something very nice and appreciate the design/aesthetics/technology/whatever than because they think it's necessary to complete the local sportive ;-)

You can buy a decent bike for very little really, and either spend less for the same quality, or get more for the less money if you go second hand. There are some places where money does by you appreciable gains in either performance, longevity or reliability, but broadly speaking it is incredible what a couple of hundred quid can get you now if it is spent wisely.

drossall
Posts: 4365
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby drossall » 7 Jan 2019, 9:46pm

thelawnet wrote:Someone put these up on sale on Facebook yesterday for £60 the pair

Image

I guess the Specialized was quite nice 20 years ago...


My MTB is the Comp version; it's still a nice bike :D
Image

Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Canuk » 7 Jan 2019, 9:56pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Brucey wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote: …….NEVER feel guilty about pending the money......
[sic]

a Freudian slip?

It is certainly your business (and being so why go on about it...?) but if you have hocked yourself up to the eyeballs already, spending money that you don't really have on needlessly expensive bikes is rarely a good idea, no matter 'how good they make you feel' at the time.

Such talk of 'spending money to feel good' is the more the talk of addicts rather than that of pragmatists, IMV.

cheers

You don't like others spending money you wouldn't and will happily tell everyone that you don't, we get that, you repeat it ad nauseam on this forum. You don't like what others buy if you don't personally agree with it or don't understand its function/limitations, again you repeat that again and again and rarely back up to justify your claims about others purchasing habits or wants/needs.

Only in your mind is something that costs X 'needless', only to you might spending x not a good idea. You have no idea how one persons purchase has an effect, people put goods, services etc on credit all the time they don't have the immediate funds for, this is part of human life, get over it already! Whether you approve or not, continually banging on about others spending habits gets a bit tedious frankly, it doesn't contribute to the discussion in the slightest.


+++1

It's the same old broken record and I'm pretty fed up with it also. Had the same hoo-ha about electronic gears.
They work, they don't need constant adjustment, or cables and it's a thing of beauty to see in action. And I can afford them. I don't smoke, I don't drink all that much and don't do drugs. So let me spend my hard earned on what I want, and keep your silly, unjustified prejudices to yourself. They've no place either here or on any forum.

Brucey
Posts: 32765
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Brucey » 8 Jan 2019, 12:26am

if anyone has a silly unjustified prejudice it appears to be folk on this forum who make wild and unjustified claims about how wonderful certain things are, mostly just parroting what is written by clueless scribes who are in the thrall of the bicycle industry and can't be trusted to give an unbiased opinion. They hate it when an ounce of common sense, experience and real science is poured on their flames of their misplaced ardour.

It is both absolute madness and no good at all for cycling as a sport to be the exclusive province of equipment snobs, yet that seems to be how the cycling press and its equally cretinous/delusional acolytes would have it be.

I merely pointed out that the unfashionable principle of 'not spending money you don't have' is actually quite a good one to adhere to when buying bikes, if your real aim is to go quickly/reliably rather than to 'keep up with the Joneses'.

There is a lot of science that can be applied to cycling and if you do enough of it you can gain a tiny fraction in real speed under certain circumstances; enough to be worth having in high level competition. But when I see folk believing that they would go a lot quicker if they had this or that gizmo or worse yet feeling excluded from cycling activity because they clearly have not spent thousands of pounds on this or that example of the latest gimcrackery I think there is something going seriously wrong somewhere.

In medieval times scholars and philosophers endlessly debated how many angels might fit on a pinhead and other such esoteric things. Right now we have folk who have wheelset 'A' comparably debating if wheelset 'B' or wheelset 'C' is 'better value' and so forth when the solution to this Gordian knot is to cut through it and realise that if you train more and eat fewer pies you will go faster for sure on wheelset A and if you have to spend money on your training needs it is often better spent there than elsewhere.

So my advice to some folk is to quit bleating about imaginary prejudices etc and get a proper sense of perspective about how much real gain there is to be had by spending lots of money (especially if it is money you don't really have in the first place) on your bike; 'not much' is almost invariably the answer. If you really want to go faster, concentrate your effort on training and eating properly; I see few bike riders that couldn't afford to get a bit fitter and to lose a few lbs; these things will usually make way more difference than any amount spent on the bike.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Canuk » 8 Jan 2019, 1:59am

Brucey wrote:if anyone has a silly unjustified prejudice it appears to be folk on this forum who make wild and unjustified claims about how wonderful certain things are, mostly just parroting what is written by clueless scribes who are in the thrall of the bicycle industry and can't be trusted to give an unbiased opinion. They hate it when an ounce of common sense, experience and real science is poured on their flames of their misplaced ardour.

It is both absolute madness and no good at all for cycling as a sport to be the exclusive province of equipment snobs, yet that seems to be how the cycling press and its equally cretinous/delusional acolytes would have it be.

I merely pointed out that the unfashionable principle of 'not spending money you don't have' is actually quite a good one to adhere to when buying bikes, if your real aim is to go quickly/reliably rather than to 'keep up with the Joneses'.

There is a lot of science that can be applied to cycling and if you do enough of it you can gain a tiny fraction in real speed under certain circumstances; enough to be worth having in high level competition. But when I see folk believing that they would go a lot quicker if they had this or that gizmo or worse yet feeling excluded from cycling activity because they clearly have not spent thousands of pounds on this or that example of the latest gimcrackery I think there is something going seriously wrong somewhere.

In medieval times scholars and philosophers endlessly debated how many angels might fit on a pinhead and other such esoteric things. Right now we have folk who have wheelset 'A' comparably debating if wheelset 'B' or wheelset 'C' is 'better value' and so forth when the solution to this Gordian knot is to cut through it and realise that if you train more and eat fewer pies you will go faster for sure on wheelset A and if you have to spend money on your training needs it is often better spent there than elsewhere.

So my advice to some folk is to quit bleating about imaginary prejudices etc and get a proper sense of perspective about how much real gain there is to be had by spending lots of money (especially if it is money you don't really have in the first place) on your bike; 'not much' is almost invariably the answer. If you really want to go faster, concentrate your effort on training and eating properly; I see few bike riders that couldn't afford to get a bit fitter and to lose a few lbs; these things will usually make way more difference than any amount spent on the bike.

cheers


Has it ever occurred that most people enjoy spending money they do have? It's just consumerism, a fact of life that evidently you partake in also. Maybe it's got nothing to do with 'going a bit faster', some people just like the finer things in life and are prepared to spend their hard earned on quality parts and bicycles.

I enjoy my electronic gears, they make my cycling more pleasurable and I spend less time on maintenance and footering about changing cables, constant adjustment ect, ect. If they were down to 105 price point they would be an industry standard and all the wittering, pointless criticism that's found in this forum would quietly evaporate. Just as it did with disc braking. That's just a question of economics. I can guarantee that in likely less than 2 years time all the chat on this section will be about 'What solar charger should I buy, or how does my Bluetooth 6 connection operate?' It'll revolve around 'apps' and electronics and devices 'talking' to one another. It's already happened on other forums. If you prefer Sturmey Archer, good luck to you I have absolutely no problem with that, I understand the appeal. That's your choice.

What I can't understand though is your quite unjustified complaint about almost everything you don't like.
Perhaps there's a reason for that, I don't know, but it comes across as condescending. A view shared up thread. There's no point criticising someone else's spending choices, you might as well criticise the colour of their hair. Fashion plays a big part in an individual's spending choices, we get that. It's not a new, or brilliant theory of consumerism. Like I said up thread, some people are happy to dress like a tramp and cut their hair at home, and some others prefer a sharp suit and a $70 coiffure. It's just personal preference and no one really has any business in how another person spends their hard earned dosh. That's a pointless exercise that will get no thanks. Quite the opposite.


You say 'it's absolute madness' but in reality it's just exercising one's own economic choice. No one wants to be dictated to on that level. It's condescending. So what if there's a discussion about this wheelset or the other? If you have the money to buy it and you think it will be A. Better than what you already have. B. A useful addition to your cycling regime C. Make your bike 'look better D. Give you a slight advantage over your current set up, whats the problem? Some people make daft choices, they get my sympathy, not my critical appraisal.

You really need to understand that' Science' plays very little and in some cases no part in buying choices. People purchase things for the most abstract of reasons, that's just how human beings are constructed and consumerism is set up to exploit that. If I were to buy a small light aircraft tomorrow I would be faced with a bewildering choice of manufacturers, materials and countries of origin. Just like bicycles. Bizarrely enough I would probably opt for a French plane, for no other good reason than I like the culture that goes into making them. They also paint their planes very nicely.

At the end of the day most people don't even take into consideration 'science' when making a purchasing decision. Sometimes it can be as abstract as 'I quite like the colour of it'. Your reliance and preference for science based decisions is commendable, but that's just not the way the majority of people, or consumerism as it stands works.

Airsporter1st
Posts: 561
Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Airsporter1st » 8 Jan 2019, 3:22am

⬆️ Very well put!

Brucey
Posts: 32765
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby Brucey » 8 Jan 2019, 8:44am

I might prefer (say) blue bikes to red bikes but I wouldn't dress 'my choice' up as somehow better or faster than other people's.

In the context of this thread (and many others) the question is often asked 'how much do I need to spend on X?'

The answer is -if you want to go quickly/reliably- not that much. As I mentioned upthread it would be extremely doubtful if the OP would notice the difference when riding a bike that cost about double what he spent.

In terms of an object of conspicuous consumption, to satisfy your every whim or just to look pretty or whatever, you can spend as much as you like, spend money you don't really have, it is your prerogative.

Just don't wildly exaggerate the performance benefits in the process.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JakobW
Posts: 229
Joined: 9 Jun 2014, 1:26pm
Location: The glorious West Midlands

Re: How much for a decent bike?

Postby JakobW » 8 Jan 2019, 8:45am

Sure, consumerism may be the way of the world we live in, but is that really desirable? Quite apart from the way that the overconsumption it encourages is literally wrecking the planet, is not an informed skepticism a far healthier attitude for people to hold? Do you not think that if a cycling forum were to become all apps and Bluetooth chat that something had perhaps been lost sight of in the process?