What difference does an "expensive" bike make?

[simonineaston]

As a student, studying design, I did a project on Alex Moulton and was tempted to buy. Settling on the APB & its variants (the cheapest of the space frame models) early on, I bought second hand. I persuaded myself that I didn't need a more expensive model, the decision based on the usual suspects - the state of my bank balance, the type of cycling I did, bicycle security etc.etc.. A quarter century of happy cycling went by.
Last year, I came across one of the dearer models at a price I couldn't ignore - a good deal cheaper than most of the APB variants I've owned. Just yards down the road for the first time, it was obvious I was riding a class act. I've fixed it up with some very nice components - the best I could get that were appropriate for its vintage, again bought second hand.
Now, it's obvious (at least to me) that it's a totally different proposition to any bike I've owned before - it's light, fast, agile and quiet. Wonderful! Do I regret not buying in to that level of quality before?
As the singer says, "Regrets? I've had a few... but then, too few to mention."!

[toontra]

I did my first London-Aberdeen ride on a gas-pipe MTB I found in a skip - a rucksack bungeed onto the rear rack. Only once I'd been bitten by the bug did I start upgrading bikes. No point spending decent money until you're pretty sure you're going to make very good use of it.

That being said, after 10 years doing a lot of cycling I treated myself to an "expensive" bike (in relative terms). What it gave me was motivation for doing more training, getting fitter and entering more cycling events.

As I see it, spending money on something that will improve your health and reduce traffic is money very well spent. Just try and make sure you're going to make good use of it and it's not a passing fad.

[Nearholmer]

Something that’s not been mentioned so far I think is progress in bike design over time.

I rode the same bike from 1991 to 2016, a good quality steel-framed hybrid, and when I treated myself to a new bike, a slightly above entry-level Al/C cyclocross machine, boy was I impressed with the improvements in braking and smoothness of gear-changes over the 25 year span, and the move to “ahead” stem was really helpful too. Both bikes sat at roughly the same place in their contemporary markets, so it wasn’t that I’d gone up-market, it was just that some things had got better for the same price in real terms.

Point of this ramble is that the OP may get a pleasant surprise on that score ……. Or not, because the great positive of the old rim-braked steel bike was smoothness of ride due to fork-flex, which disc braked bikes don’t seem to match.

[Carlton green]

The immediate difference that an expensive bike makes is that you no longer have as much money. The bike might or might not work well for you and it will be a magnet to thieves … before long you could end up with no bike at all.

A cheap bike, and particularly a cheap new bike, struggles to be made of good enough parts to allow a good ride and anything much in the way of durable use - though there are exceptions. I had a cheap old second hand roadster which was built to last; performance wasn’t great and never could be, but looking back it would have been possible to change a few (more) things for the better.

I’ve only once bought a brand new bike, it wasn’t cheap and it is my least used bike because I bought the wrong type of bike and the wrong size of bike … mistakes happen and I’ve learnt a lot since then. So, rule one is have a really good understanding of what you need and then research the market well. The other bikes that I have fit me like a glove and that’s the result of changes to old bikes that I bought; those bikes would likely propel me faster and further if they were made from better quality parts, but I’m happy enough with the functionality that I now have and I am disinclined to risk funds on what should be better but might not be. YMMV.

[rareposter]

First tinker with your current bike to establish what geometry gets you comfortable. In addition to moving the saddle, changing the handlebar stem is inexpensive and will let you find out if the new position is better or worse than previously. One of the adjustable stems may be the best starting place.

The problem with that approach is that the OP has so far given no indication of the exact model of bike or the set-up or any pics and has, from his/her first post already tried a lot of changes:

I currently ride an old Raleigh bike I bought for £40 via the For Sale forum on this site in 2018 and it still works okay. I get painful wrists and bum cycling it, and have tried many different variations to try and avoid that.

I suspect some of this is being done based on hearsay or generic internet advice or perhaps rather random bike shop advice where they're more interested in selling one part than fixing the overall issue so it would really help to get an overall picture of what the fit is, what the options are for changing anything cos that'll vary depending on the components (eg quill stem vs Ahead, drop bars vs flat - we have no idea what is on this "old Raleigh bike") and what has been done already. Changing stuff haphazardly is unlikely to ease the problem but it will result in confusion over what has been changed and why as well as a lot of potentially wasted money.

I rode the same bike from 1991 to 2016, a good quality steel-framed hybrid, and when I treated myself to a new bike, a slightly above entry-level Al/C cyclocross machine, boy was I impressed with the improvements in braking and smoothness of gear-changes over the 25 year span, and the move to “ahead” stem was really helpful too. Both bikes sat at roughly the same place in their contemporary markets, so it wasn’t that I’d gone up-market, it was just that some things had got better for the same price in real terms.

Yep - my 2002 race bike was (in its day) top of the range and I rode and raced it for many years.
My current road bike, 20 years newer but very much middle of the range, outperforms it in every way. It's stiffer, faster, more aero, more comfortable...

[CyberKnight]

article on gcn
one of the presenters got out his 10 year old team issue bike and compared it to a new aero road bike and the new one was 2-3 mph quicker over the tests .
yes i know this is cutting edge stuff but its still a trickle down above a certain price point so when i turn up for a group ride on an old alloy frame that i literally built up from bits against some who have all singing and dancing bikes i often wonder how much extra effort i have to put in just to keep up .

[Cugel]

It's the wrong question. A better one would be:

What difference does a well made and well-fitted (to rider and their purposes) bike make?

One of the answers may well be:

"A well-made and well-fitted bike is likely to be more expensive than a poorly-made and badly-fitted bike".

There are many aspects of a bicycle's design, manufacture and materials that can contribute to all sorts of features in it that would generally be judged as "better": resilient, comfortable, long-lasting, functionally unproblematic, multi-role and so forth. There is the usual tendency of you-get-what-you-pay for with bicycles as with much else.

This isn't to say that there aren't good quality inexpensive bikes; or that expensive bikes are always good quality (especially if you're paying for a fashionable label on the bike rather than just for the bike). But, up to a certain point on the graph of diminishing returns, paying more dosh can often get you "more" bike and less bike-shaped-object aspects.

It goes without saying that one needs a bike to fit well and to have the attributes serving the intended purposes. But this isn't necessarily anything to do with the expense - unless the attribute itself is inherently expensive (such as an electric motor and a battery added to a bike; or the gleam and cache of top-of-the-range components that are not functionally better but may serve a buyer's high posing requirements )

****************
Is there a need to buy a cheap bike first to test the fit and so forth? Not really. You can test the fit of an expensive one with a test ride. And, should you want the longer tests of owning a cheap bike, this begs the question: how many cheap bikes will you have to try before you discover the attributes you really, really require? And what about the possibility that cheap bikes may never (of their nature) reveal how better bikes actually can be better?

What other items would you buy a very cheap example of to test (somehow) what you want of the more expensive purchase? What data does experience with the cheap one provide about how to choose a better and probably more expensive example?

I recall buying cheap woodworking tools that worked (if they did at all) very poorly. It only taught me what I didn't want - cheap and nasty tools that didn't work properly. I had to buy more expensive ones to eventually discover what I did want. The first of those wasn't the right tool either, sometimes, for reasons other than simply "cheap and doesn't do anything it should".

In short, there may be no easy and perfect way to discover the bike (or anything else) that I should buy to satisfy my (often inchoate) requirements. BUt first step - refine the requirements.

Cugel

[scottg]

[snip]i often wonder how much extra effort i have to put in just to keep up .

It means you will 4th in line at the tea stop instead of 2nd.

[531colin]

...........
Is there a need to buy a cheap bike first to test the fit and so forth? Not really. You can test the fit of an expensive one with a test ride.

Cugel

I can test the fit of a bike on a test ride because I know what fit I want.

You can test the fit on a test ride because you know what fit you want.

The OP I don't think can test the fit on a test ride because his current bike gives him a sore bum and sore wrists (if I remember correctly) which suggests to me that his current position is wrong; he may recognise that another bike is "different" by test riding, but he can't know if its "right" .

(Its interesting to note that you and me want different things; you apparently want a "fit" whereby your hands can be jolted off the bars by a bump, but thats not something I want. )

[David2504]

It makes you poorer than owning a less expensive bike

[Cugel]

The OP I don't think can test the fit on a test ride because his current bike gives him a sore bum and sore wrists (if I remember correctly) which suggests to me that his current position is wrong; he may recognise that another bike is "different" by test riding, but he can't know if its "right" .

If the OP can't test for the fit he wants on a test ride, how can he successfully choose a bike of any price point, inexpensive or otherwise? I can't see how buying a cheap bike will test the required fit effectively if it doesn't fit. If it does fit, that might serve as a basis for choosing the fit when buying a better bike but it won't test anything about the various other attributes that make another and perhaps more expensive bike "better" than the inexpensive bike.

Conversely, there's a ton of information describing how various aspects of a bicycle (besides but including the fit) are "better" in all sorts of ways and for different purposes. You don't necessarily have to use a bike to at least begin homing in on "better", although actual use can help refine the requirements in some cases.

I can't see how someone buying an inexpensive but probably inadequate (for their purposes) bike helps them to positively define what an adequate bike would be Such a purchase is only going to define the negative aspect that, "It's not that (the inexpensive bike) that I want". This applies to the fit as well as any other functional aspect that turns out to be "not what I want".

As with other bought functional items (tools, let's call them) the most obvious way to buy what you want/need is to first do your utmost to define what it is you want, in every particular. Buying and trying N cheap items is not a good way to do this at it will only tell you that you don't want a cheap and poorly functioning bike, not what a well-functioning bike will be and how for define & find one.

***************

Ignore cost and define/find the functionality & other qualities wanted. Then decide if you can afford a bike meeting these criteria and, if not, what you're prepared to compromise on to reach your price point. This process is more: start with the most expensive bike meeting your wants then work your way down to one that preserves as many of its qualities as possible but costs what you're prepared to pay. It's the opposite process of starting with a cheap bike you really don't want at all, trying gawd-knows how many cheap bikes and maybe (if you're lucky) eventually finding one you do like

And if you do find a cheap bike you like, why bother at all with a more expensive one?

**********
It's a common thing, these days, to come across folk who've bought cheap, regretted it and never bought better because they don't want to make another financial mistake (can't afford to anyway) and still have no idea how to find such an item that would meet their true wants. The consequences can be many, from frustrated ambitions given up to larger accumulations of junk in the landfills.

Cugel

[rareposter]

That ^^ is all quite valid but let's not forget here that none of us have any idea of:
what the current bike actually is beyond "an old Raleigh"
anything about the OP - their age, fitness, experience, riding style
what they want the bike for (yes OK "riding" but what - touring, racing, gravel, towpaths, all-day rides, commuting...???)
what changes the OP has made to it and under what "advice"

This seems to be the way with a lot of these "seeking advice..." posts on here - the OP drops in some basic but far from complete info and then either drip feeds in the rest at intervals or never reappears again.

I absolutely agree that the first things to sort are:
what you want the bike for
the budget
and they can then work on getting the sizing and components right around those. And rather than a bunch of guesses on an internet forum, I'd suggest that a good reputable shop that specialises in whatever kind of bike the OP wants should be the first port of call.

[Nearholmer]

Cugel

All of which assumes, wrongly IMO, that a beginner in any craft/activity is knowledgeable enough to define closely what they want the thing to do, and when presented with options by a wily salesperson to be able to sort those that will meet the specification from those that won’t.

I’ve certainly bought the wrong thing on occasion.

Which may or may not relate to the OP’s position …… I get the impression that he or she may have some solid experience to build on.

[20130814]

Wow - thank you to all for your very comprehensive replies, I do appreciate it.

Don't laugh - this is my current bike:



I think it's so upright I can see why I get a sore bum riding it - I set it up in such an upright position to try and take the weight off my wrists, but having read the replies on this post, I need to reassess what to do.

I used to do a lot of cycling (for me that is), doing about 3,000 miles a year between maybe 1998 and 2011. Partly that was because about twice a week I'd do a 45 mile round trip commute to work. Then I'd go for rides in the hills, and managed a few longer rides too (100, 135, 150, 175 and 200 milers over the years). Previously I've done some cycle touring too, but that was a very long time ago (1989 with school, and 1994 with a friend from university).

However, in 2011 I found I wasn't get fitter from cycling, I was just exhausted instead so bought a cheap old car and started driving to work when my wife needed the other car.

I did short rides with my kids while they were growing up and went on the odd 15 mile ride but nothing much more than that until last year.

At the I stopped riding a lot I was riding a nice old Reynolds 501 Raleigh Criterium https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165866294421 ... N_EALw_wcB.

When I stopped riding a lot I had recently been diagnosed with bursitis in my left hip and had painful elbows and wrists.

Since then, probably in a rather silly self-denial phase, I have been riding bikes that aren't probably very well set up hence new round of aches and pains. However, I am spending a lot of time in Dumfries and Galloway these days, my kids have left home, and so I feel like the time is right to rekindle my love of cycling, because on a good day, when I did it a lot, I had many wonderful bike rides.

Last summer I did maybe 10 rides of about 15 to 20 miles on this Decathlon folding bike, which were great:



Also did a 50 miler on the Raleigh photographed above, however, I still got the aches and pains on both bikes, though more so with the Raleigh.

I suppose I just feel a bit bewildered with all of the options, plus, as with most things these days, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of things available to choose from, so it can feel a bit tricky to know where to start.

Maybe if I had a bike fitting, that'd be a good place to start, but that means going to a fancy bike shop run by blokes with big bushy beards, where there is the obligatory swanky coffee shop bolted on populated by super swanky cyclists on bikes that cost as much as our family car

EDIT - sorry for lazy stereotype there about bike fitting and trendy bike shops.

As you can see, I am over thinking this.

Thanks again to everyone.

Jim

[Cugel]

Cugel

All of which assumes, wrongly IMO, that a beginner in any craft/activity is knowledgeable enough to define closely what they want the thing to do, and when presented with options by a wily salesperson to be able to sort those that will meet the specification from those that won’t.

I’ve certainly bought the wrong thing on occasion.

Which may or may not relate to the OP’s position …… I get the impression that he or she may have some solid experience to build on.

My point is that the experience you get from riding an inexpensive bike that has many less than properly functional aspects is that the only experience you get is of a bad bike. That's not the same as experience of a good bike, which is the experience you need to be able to choose a good bike for yourself.

Lacking the wherewithal to choose a good bike from experience, the best step is to choose one from information, not experience of something you don't want and which is not-good.

Incidentally, the OP has a bike that's inexpensive (as inexpensive as possible since he already has it and doesn't need to buy it). Experience of this inexpensive bike seems to have been inadequate as the basis for choosing a better bike.

The answer is:

1 Inform oneself about what constitutes the attributes of a good bike for a given purpose.
2 Find descriptions of such bikes along wth reviews that aren't just PR blurbs in disguise
3 Try to get a test ride of such a bike, from shop or a friend.
4 Compromise on the least important bits to get down to the price you can afford.

I feel that the OP could earmark, say, £500 - £1000 and, after doing research, find a very good bike that will serve him well in the ways required for a long time. It is possible to get it "right first time" if you do enough to reach a certain level of understanding about what it is you're wanting.

But whatever you do, avoid wasting money on a bike shaped object in the erroneous assumption that this will somehow tell you what you really want.

Cugel