"Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
Post Reply
jackt
Posts: 99
Joined: 30 Jul 2008, 11:13pm

"Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by jackt »

I’m working on a feature for Cycle magazine about good value / budget conscious alternatives to expensive ‘cycling-specific’ products. The idea stems from my suspicion that so much stuff seems to be much more expensive as soon as the word ‘cycling’ is added to it. And even within cycling specific products, there is a huge range from budget offerings of Aldi, Decathlon, PlanetX, Lomo etc to the Raphas, Castellis etc. The remitis everything bar complete bikes - so clothing and footwear, bike parts and accessories, luggage, camping and touring gear, food and drink, tools and maintenance supplies plus any other bits and pieces that come in handy.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t ever buy expensive gear if they want - some top end products are worth the money, and there are good reasons for avoiding 'cheap crap'. But - despite what the adverts tell us - there are under-the-radar alternatives, often from the non-cycling world, that are as good as or in some cases better for a fraction of the price. It’s about choosing what works, saving money, and challenging the myth that you need fancy ‘cycling specific’ stuff to ride a bike.

A section of the feature is "Cycling UK members recommend it" - and as a regular forum reader I know this place is a rich source of good advice. So if you've made a discovery, whether mundane or magnificent, would you be willing to share it? All recommendations will be credited where used. Some of mine include Uniqlo lightweight shorts and base layers, Decathlon Forclaz insulated jackets, Ronhill tracksters, bulk bought inner tube patches, Smart AAA battery rear lights, Ikea rechargeable batteries, safety glasses from Screwfix, fig rolls as energy bars snacks and chocolate milk instead of pricey recovery drinks, toe clip straps to secure things to the bike, TESA tubeless tape, the list goes on. But over to you.... many thanks in advance!
re_cycler
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Dec 2022, 7:18pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by re_cycler »

Take one step back from that view, you don't need anything cycling specific to just ride a bike.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by Jdsk »

There's a lot of support for Rohan clothes in the archives. Including mine.

And for dry bags from cheap supermarkets rather than anything branded. I use Exped!

I totally agree about safety glasses for work compared to "cycling glasses". I use Bollé.

Unnecessarily powerful solvents are often recommended.

And in this forum there are more unevidenced assertions about food and drink than anything else. And that includes how to clean and lubricate chains!

I look forward to reading it.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by mattheus »

re_cycler wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 10:41am Take one step back from that view, you don't need anything cycling specific to just ride a bike.
True:
But it's a lot easier with bike-specific rear lights and inner-tube patches.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by fastpedaller »

You say you're doing an article for the magazine - has this been agreed upon, or are you in the early stages? I don't want to stiffle your enthusiasm, (I consider you are correct BTW), but I can see a potential snag here......... The magazines are supported through advertising placed by the major players - I think it's agreed they hold a lot of sway. I can anticipate a dead -end unfortunately.

As an aside, there has been lots of speculation in the past regarding (for example) reviews of new bikes in the cycling press- have the reviewers even ridden the bikes? My suspicions about magazine reviews were confirmed several years ago when I bought a Kodak camera - the reviews in many magazines had very similar wording, and all stated the macro setting wasn't great as it only focussed down to 12cm. When I examined the camera in a shop it became clear the correct figure was 12mm. The incorrect measurement was also quoted in the kodak sales brochure, although in the full tech-spec it correctly said 12mm. So the reviewers had all 'reviewed' the sales brochure they'd been provided with? make your own judgement!
roberts8
Posts: 547
Joined: 20 May 2011, 9:14pm
Location: Surrey

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by roberts8 »

I agree about bolle safety glasses at a fraction of the price of cycling specific.
Also I have taken to wearing Amazon sourced padded underwear with M and S outer trousers and shorts.
This is influenced by my wife’s observations that me in Lycra would scare horses and traumatise children.
jackt
Posts: 99
Joined: 30 Jul 2008, 11:13pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by jackt »

fastpedaller wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 11:04am You say you're doing an article for the magazine - has this been agreed upon, or are you in the early stages? I don't want to stiffle your enthusiasm, (I consider you are correct BTW), but I can see a potential snag here......... The magazines are supported through advertising placed by the major players - I think it's agreed they hold a lot of sway. I can anticipate a dead -end unfortunately.

As an aside, there has been lots of speculation in the past regarding (for example) reviews of new bikes in the cycling press- have the reviewers even ridden the bikes? My suspicions about magazine reviews were confirmed several years ago when I bought a Kodak camera - the reviews in many magazines had very similar wording, and all stated the macro setting wasn't great as it only focussed down to 12cm. When I examined the camera in a shop it became clear the correct figure was 12mm. The incorrect measurement was also quoted in the kodak sales brochure, although in the full tech-spec it correctly said 12mm. So the reviewers had all 'reviewed' the sales brochure they'd been provided with? make your own judgement!
Yes - the feature has been commissioned. Any recommendation that I make will be things I have tried and tested myself. I am also canvassing others (including here on the forum) for their suggestions, to cast a much wider net and all recommendations will be attributed.

I've occasionally reviewed products for Cycle and I've always had complete independence. I am aware that there has been some controversy elsewhere in the cycling press regarding bike reviews and advertisers interests, but I've always felt that one of the virtues of Cycle is its independence, impartiality and the integrity of its product reviews.
PT1029
Posts: 1744
Joined: 16 Apr 2012, 9:20pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by PT1029 »

I like my decent kit - better made/more durable and (mostly) works better.
That said, I always recon when it come to it, you need a bike with 2 brakes and 1 gear. Anything extra is a bonus!

There was an article some while back on cheap bikes for commuting. They all scored remarkably well. The down fall of the article in my view was they didn't revisit the bikes after say 6 - 12 months commuting, when no doubt they would have scored rather less well. I repair bikes at work, so see plenty of such things.

So back to the accessories article. It needs to include something on long term use/durability as well.
Also there is the how they are made aspect which will concern some purchasers. I suspect the workers in Mr Rohloff's factory in Germany have better terms and conditions than the cheapest Mr Shimano's/Falcon/Sunrun etc gears made in China.
re_cycler
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Dec 2022, 7:18pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by re_cycler »

mattheus wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 10:59am
re_cycler wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 10:41am Take one step back from that view, you don't need anything cycling specific to just ride a bike.
True:
But it's a lot easier with bike-specific rear lights and inner-tube patches.
Very true, I just dislike the image and that bar to entry of needing cycling specific items before you can ride a mile to the shops. Of course a bike is a cycling specific item, although I've seen a few turned into attractive flower pot holders.
jackt
Posts: 99
Joined: 30 Jul 2008, 11:13pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by jackt »

PT1029 wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 11:12am
So back to the accessories article. It needs to include something on long term use/durability as well.
Also there is the how they are made aspect which will concern some purchasers. I suspect the workers in Mr Rohloff's factory in Germany have better terms and conditions than the cheapest Mr Shimano's/Falcon/Sunrun etc gears made in China.
I agree on both these points and will be making the 'how they're made' point explicit in the article. However, just because a product is expensive doesn't mean it's been ethically produced, and just because one product is cheaper than another isn't always because the people who made it were exploited.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by fastpedaller »

jackt wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 11:11am
fastpedaller wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 11:04am You say you're doing an article for the magazine - has this been agreed upon, or are you in the early stages? I don't want to stiffle your enthusiasm, (I consider you are correct BTW), but I can see a potential snag here......... The magazines are supported through advertising placed by the major players - I think it's agreed they hold a lot of sway. I can anticipate a dead -end unfortunately.

As an aside, there has been lots of speculation in the past regarding (for example) reviews of new bikes in the cycling press- have the reviewers even ridden the bikes? My suspicions about magazine reviews were confirmed several years ago when I bought a Kodak camera - the reviews in many magazines had very similar wording, and all stated the macro setting wasn't great as it only focussed down to 12cm. When I examined the camera in a shop it became clear the correct figure was 12mm. The incorrect measurement was also quoted in the kodak sales brochure, although in the full tech-spec it correctly said 12mm. So the reviewers had all 'reviewed' the sales brochure they'd been provided with? make your own judgement!
Yes - the feature has been commissioned. Any recommendation that I make will be things I have tried and tested myself. I am also canvassing others (including here on the forum) for their suggestions, to cast a much wider net and all recommendations will be attributed.

I've occasionally reviewed products for Cycle and I've always had complete independence. I am aware that there has been some controversy elsewhere in the cycling press regarding bike reviews and advertisers interests, but I've always felt that one of the virtues of Cycle is its independence, impartiality and the integrity of its product reviews.
That's good. I asked partly because I also have an association by way of producing reviews (for a specialist car magazine). The magazine also has good policies and an independent outlook which is often missing within the publishing arena. I wish you success.
Valbrona
Posts: 2696
Joined: 7 Feb 2011, 4:49pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by Valbrona »

I can't say I have ever found anything 'cheap but good' ... in forty years of cycling.
I should coco.
Richard123
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Dec 2022, 2:51pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by Richard123 »

I've just looked at some of the items you guy shave mentioned, the Smart light, the Bolle glasses, the Exped bags. Really amazing for someone like me just starting really, with so much to buy. I do know Decathlon gets a lot of good reviews, and many known cyclist use thier gear.

Thanks to all for the heads up guys.

Richard.
jackt
Posts: 99
Joined: 30 Jul 2008, 11:13pm

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by jackt »

Valbrona wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 11:43am I can't say I have ever found anything 'cheap but good' ... in forty years of cycling.
I suppose it's relative. And the idea of 'cheap' often seems to conjure 'nasty'. Maybe "not expensive but just as good" better captures it.

To take a couple of examples beyond the list in my original post, I've found the Sportwool jerseys sold by Torm to be a match for the equivalent from Rapha, despite a big price disparity, Tyvek housewrap has never let me down as a groundsheet when camping, I use LHM automotive brake fluid in my Shimano hydraulic disk brakes with no problem, my £25 Tortec pannier rack rear seems every bit as good as racks that cost double or more... etc etc
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: "Cheap but good" - feature for Cycle magazine

Post by fastpedaller »

Valbrona wrote: 10 Jan 2023, 11:43am I can't say I have ever found anything 'cheap but good' ... in forty years of cycling.
I bought some 'reject' Michelin speed 27 x 1 1/4 tyres from my LBS some 40 years ago - £2 each IIRC. They were deemed reject by way of cosmetics (indestinct/wobbly wall colour). They ran perfectly true, and were IMHO better than any I'd previously had. they lasted an embarrassingly long time, and did about 50k miles! I thought they'd never wear out.
Post Reply