Advise for beginner

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:48:37 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):
....

Quoted message said:

It strikes me you're rather tarring everyone that works for EBC with the
same brush. Did you ask /all/ of them about Eric the Half a Brain, did
they /all/ say you never use grannies?

I'm going to deal with them seperately, as I think they're very
different issues.

(First, I'll get Martlet out of the way - it's irrelevant to the OP of
this thread after all.

I only checked with one menber of staff, but his view was that it was
not generally known in the shop - it had never come up at any point he
was around, and he reckoned it was the sort of thing that would have
become part of staff chats.

I'll find out about the generic level of Martlet awareness at EBC
soon, as it's going to be a staff meeting issue now (I mentioned how
the Martlet bill might have the potential for criminalising bike shop
staff).

Now for the staff condescension.

Quoted message said:

I've had Saturday Staff syndrome at EBC before now, but if you're in
when it's not busy and find someone who knows about your particular
style of cycling then they are IME very good.

It wasn't Saturday Staff Syndrome, quite the reverse.

It was relatively 'senior' staff - I got referred to him by junior
staff because it was during my warranty hassles.

(If you /really/ want, I'll tell you exactly who by email, and you
can judge for yourself).

First of all, my long term boycott of the shop was for them not
honouring the warranty with like-for-like replacements of faulty
parts, (back in '94 when I went from adult non-cyclist to commuter
cyclist), not for condescension.

But when I originally bought my bike there, I did feel a bit like I
was dealt in a rather 'what do you mean, you don't know what bike you
want?' when I went in with my 'I'd like a bike for urban commuting.
I've not cycled for 10 years.' query.

I had put this down to the fact that I was a bit intimidated.

But on taking friends and wife for the same experience, I began to
feel that it wasn't just me.

The 'granny gear' incident was imv, betrayed a mentality that was not
geared to dealing with adult 'returners', just symptomatically
thoughtless, imo, betraying a 'we sell bikes here - to cyclists'
attitude. One that forgets what it was like to go from adult
non-cyclist to adult cyclist.

So not Saturday Staff syndrome. What I'm describing is, IMO, the
opposite effect. Quite the reverse.

The more experienced the cyclist, the better the staff will be for
them.

Quoted message said:

Don't forget they sell a
wide range of bikes, and if you get the laddish lad who's into bikes for
downhill MTB then he wouldn't have any use for grannies, wouldn't be
affected by EtHaB, or (as I found out) know a damn thing about panniers.
But that's not everyone there.

Exactly. So 'we call the bottom gears granny gears because only a
granny would ever need to use them' to a new cyclist who is using
their granny gears a lot is a bit condescending.

Principally becuase it betrays the assumption that anyone in the shop
should already be 'into bikes', as you put.

'By people who are into bikes, for people who are into bikes.' is
exactly the attitude I think it betrays, and that is true of many bike
shops.

Quoted message said:

And further leaping to their defence, I've had exemplary customer
service there. When my 7 year old tourer cracked its frame they
replaced it FoC despite it being 5 years out of warranty, and also
transferred all the fits FoC /and/ gave me a new headset FoC while they
were at it.

I'm glad you did. Me, I spent months on the warranty hassles, and if
I'd had anything like that level of service I would not be grumbling.

My parts were not replaced despite /still being under warranty/.

(I had thumb-shifters. I had deliberately chosen their own-brand
mid-range or mid-range+ because the range one below it had thumb
shifters. They failed after a few months.

EBC would only replace them with the top of bar shifters from the
range below. The statement made 'but it would be more expensive for
us to get in the type that have broken' was the one that really stuck
in my craw.

Or if they'd offered some minor compensation to cover for the fact
that they were downgrading the bike I'd bought from them, I suspect
i'd have been easily 'bought off'.

Quoted message said:

EBC used to be my local bike shop when I stayed in Marchmont, but I've
kept going back for various things because they earned more custom
through good service. Nobody manages 100% though, and if you can find
any largeish sales organisation that doesn't include at least one
vaguely clueless makeweight I'd be fairly surprised.

Pete.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

"Gawnsoft" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'll find out about the generic level of Martlet awareness at EBC
soon, as it's going to be a staff meeting issue now (I mentioned how
the Martlet bill might have the potential for criminalising bike shop
staff).

You do know it isn't actually Martlet? (just checking - people often get
thrown by such minor errors/jokes)

cheers,
clive

Richard said:

As others have said, you can buy a fair starter bike for £200 or so.
Make sure it has:

- aluminium wheel rims, not steel (which have all the braking efficiency
of a wet paper bag)
- mudguards, for that pleasantly dry riding experience.
- unless you're riding someplace hilly like Sheffield, huge numbers of
gears are not required.
- smooth-tread tyres, not knobbly ones.

A Raleigh Chopper fits that spec (they now have alloy rims - I checked
in Halfords)! You'll be the hippest cat in the 'hood.

Following on from SRT's message. . .

Quoted message said:

"SRT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also possibly to cycle
the ten miles to work everyday.

Does anyone have any advice on the type of bike to buy?

I would like it to be as inexpensive as possible and preferably brand new.

The bike will be used on the road.

TIA.

Thanks for all your input. I think I should elaborate on my situation
further. I live in Shetland and consequently do not have the opportunity to
try out the bikes - there are no real bike shops up here.

Also the bike I will be looking for as well as being used for commuting
would be used as a way of maintaining my fitness. Are these compatible?

10 miles each way = 100 miles per week = 1.5 hours a day . Ummm,
/Perhaps/ in Shetland you /might/ just get away with that as a way of
maintaining fitness. 🙂

Seriously, if you don't have a LBS[Local bike shop] then try to track
down some local cyclists and have a natter. An ounce of practice is
worth a ton of theory. Even if all you do is try out a bike or two to
find a frame size that suits you which you can then dial into the
specification for MO[You imply you can't get to a bike shop to try
things out - The wrong size will be an enormous handicap] The local
dudes will have lots of tips on all sorts of things from what to carry
as an emergency toolkit to strategies for combating the elements.

Well done for having a go. A 20 mile daily ride is perfectly possible
but takes some doing day-in-day-out in perfect conditions with a well
suited combination of bike and body. You wouldn't think of running for
an hour and a half every day in ballet shoes (flimsy) or safety boots
(heavy) or wellingtons (just the wrong thing) or shoes that didn't
fit...
....so:
(1) The right sort - Probably a hybrid is ideal (a 'working' bike) but
anything _without_ knobbly tyres and _without_ suspension would get you
going.
(2) The right size - There are plenty of rules of thumb... ...but none
of them are 100% trustworthy enough to order a new bike unseen.
(3) [If buying new] - Dodge the shoddy end of the market. Expect to
spend at least £300 by the time you've added a few accessories.

My personal preferences are
(a) Get mudguards _fitted by shop_
(b) Get a good rack for the back (if not make sure bike has screw points
'brazings'😉...
(c)...and one or two clip-on pannier bags.
(d) Avoid knife-edge or mega-fat or gel(gimmic) saddles

I'm not sure what the roads of Shetland are like but if drivers are not
used to seeing cycles they won't be driving with them in mind. So add
(4) Invest in visibility gear (bright in the day, reflective at night)
[which you'd do anyway.]

======
** OR **
======
Take an entirely different approach. Buy a folder. That way people
will stop and offer you a lift knowing the bike will pop in the back.

======
Finally
======
It is traditional in u.r.c. to say : "Let us know how you get on".
and "Don't be shy about asking more questions"

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

SRT said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also possibly to cycle
the ten miles to work everyday.

Does anyone have any advice on the type of bike to buy?

I would like it to be as inexpensive as possible and preferably brand new.

The bike will be used on the road.

TIA.

If you look here

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j8sa00pasno24s47mf9mhs6r01shvvl303%404ax.com&rnum=1

You'll find some advice to a novice rider that I posted a while ago.

From your description I would suggest looking no further than a Claud Butler
Chinook :-

heres a link :-

http://www.falconcycles.co.uk/product.php?c.id=3&s.id=1&p.id=236

PS

If you search hard enough you should be able to pick a new one up for £239

Regards

Sean B

"SRT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also possibly to cycle
the ten miles to work everyday.

Does anyone have any advice on the type of bike to buy?

I would like it to be as inexpensive as possible and preferably brand new.

The bike will be used on the road.

TIA.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

But do check for what the /lowest/ gear setting is.

My experience of bike-shop folk is that they are dismissive of the
new-to-cycling adult commuter.

My thoughts exactly. Norfolk isn't the hiiliest county in England, but
*particularly* when I first got back on the bike I was very pleased I had a
granny ring & 27 gears...

The fit may well not use a granny ring or lots of gears, but it's easily
forgotten that when first getting on or back on a bike in an unfit state, it
can be of benefit to have lots of gears as provided by a granny ring &
nine-speed block.

Cheers, helen s

Absolutely agree. Make sure *you're* happy with the fit of the bike
too, don't let them tell you it's fine if it's too big or too small. I
have 3x9 gears on mine, and whilst not the lowest gearing combinations
in the world, I'm managing to get up at least part way of most hills
these days (and am unfit with wet string for leg muscles). But, lower
gears still would be easier sometimes. Tis hard work for legs unused to
this sort of thing even on the gearing I have.

Granny rings are great!

--

Velvet

SRT said:

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also possibly to cycle
the ten miles to work everyday.

My four penworth,

I started bicycle commuting 11 miles each way at the age of 53. If I can
do it, anybody can.

Like you, I agonised over what sort of bike to get for a fairly long
commute using normal roads. The advice I got from most local bike shops
was to get a hybrid. The reasoning behind this advice was that I would
be able to use the bike for commuting during the week and still be able
to go off-roading at weekend. This advice was offered in spite of my
insistence that I was in no way interested in cycling off-road. This
example goes to show that bike shops are influenced by fashion.

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I can only help
you to consider your personal requirements. You say you will be cycling
on roads. This suggests a _road_ bike. You will have no need of heavy
suspension systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend to use the
bike off-road.

You _will_ need a pannier rack. Carrying stuff to work in a rucksack is
sweaty and tends to affect the balance.

You _will_ need mudguards. Cycling on wet roads without them is not fun.
If you are commuting in all weathers you have to consider the fun
element _very_ seriously. It is very easy to slide back into car use
after one or two bad trips. Cycling in the rain can actually be fun, but
you have to be prepared.

When thinking about how much you can afford to spend, remember how much
you will be saving by not using a car or public transport. Even if you
keep your car (I sold one of ours when I started cycle commuting) you
will still be saving money on approximately 5000 miles worth of
petrol/diesel per year. This could allow you to buy a new, good quality
bike every year and still be ahead financially.

My personal decision was to build an Audax bike. This is a compromise
between a touring bike built for long distance tours with heavy loads
and a race bike which is built purely for speed. It is lighter than a
proper touring bike, but retains the fittings for mudguards and pannier
rack which pure race machines do not require.

If you are to continue commuting throughout the year you will find that
an efficient system is preferable to one which provides a substantial
amount of weight training. Aerobic exercise does not require you to have
a heavy, inefficient bike.

If you do start to commute, it will take about three weeks maximum to
work out why cyclists wear cycle clothing. Anything else is sweaty. At
this time of year a cycling top and shorts (preferably BIB shorts, which
will maintain an interesting dialogue with Helen on this ng) will be enough.

I must echo the other contributors who specified drop handlebars for
commuting. If the wind is against you (It always is) getting down on the
drops will make the ride bearable. Sitting up into the wind is not
recomended.

When you start budgeting for your new bike remember to include the cost
of lighting systems, waterproofs, special clothing, clipless pedals and
shoes and panniers. You should also consider the cost of a new suit
which will be at least a size smaller than your current one.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

I wear a helmet more in hope than expectation, a bit like not walking
under a ladder, just in case.

Terry D said:

to go off-roading at weekend. This advice was offered in spite of my
insistence that I was in no way interested in cycling off-road. This
example goes to show that bike shops are influenced by fashion.

And in turn fashion dictates what they have to sell. But the modern
hybrid is basically very similar to what were just called "bikes" (as
opposed to racers, tourers, shoppers etc.) back in the 70s (and probably
before) and are actually good because they're an all round /road/
machine, not because you can go off the tarmac (you can get off the
tarmac on just about anything if the tyres aren't knife blades)

Quoted message said:

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I can only help
you to consider your personal requirements. You say you will be cycling
on roads. This suggests a _road_ bike. You will have no need of heavy
suspension systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend to use the
bike off-road.

Though do note that the MTB part of "hybrid" often amounts to flat bars
and gear shifters you can reach without moving your hands. I think it's
a mistake to assume they're necessarily inferior on roads. If you say
"road bike" to most cycle shops they will probably assume the current
fashion for "road bike" == "serious racing machinery" and give you
something that isn't too comfortable and doesn't necessarily take
luggage or mudguards very well.

Quoted message said:

I must echo the other contributors who specified drop handlebars for
commuting. If the wind is against you (It always is) getting down on the
drops will make the ride bearable. Sitting up into the wind is not
recomended.

When I rode an upright bike for distances I preferred drops more for the
different hand positions than the aero, but why ever you have them it
should be noted that they do have a learning curve (both physical and
mental) and are more awkward than flat bars for a novice. Millions of
people across the world use flat bars for cycling, quite a lot of them
over Real Distances, so you shouldn't get hung up on flat bars being
bad, and they are easier to get you going.

Quoted message said:

When you start budgeting for your new bike remember to include the cost
of lighting systems, waterproofs, special clothing, clipless pedals and
shoes and panniers.

"Special clothing" may not need to amount to much. If you're doing 10
miles each way every day then cycle shorts with a padded insert may well
be good, but beyond that it's quite possible you have everything you
need. Don't start with clipless pedals, they can be retrofitted at any
time in the future and are an unnecessary complication for now, though
cycling shoes do make journeys easier whatever pedals you use. But
again, millions get by without them. Panniers are wonderful, but you
can bungee a carrier bag to the rack for a start and save yourself
another pile of cash.

The denizens of this group include pretty serious cyclists who are aware
of the benefits of improved kit (me, for example: I have a selection of
bikes for different jobs, a couple of them have 4 figure price tags),
but sometimes they seem to forget that you can get a lot done on a basic
machine with no special kit. As is well proven by the machines most of
us started on and the things we wore, and by the millions of people
around the world who just get on their normal bikes every day and use
them to get from A to B in whatever clothes they happened to be wearing.
The extras /are/ worth it but you can add them over time and there is
no need to budget for them in your initial purchase if you are cutting
things financially fine. Caveat: lights are not to be considered
"extras" on a roadgoing utility cycle, especially as far north as you
are if you plan using the bike between October and March.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Caveat: lights are not to be considered
"extras" on a roadgoing utility cycle, especially as far north as you
are if you plan using the bike between October and March.

Though the up side is that you do not need lights at all for three months of
the year (having lived at the same latitude for a while.. Lerwick is about
the same distance north as Oslo)

If you go further north then you need sunglasses 24 hours a day in the land
of the midnight sun but Shetland isn't quite that far.

...d

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:25:22 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

"Gawnsoft" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'll find out about the generic level of Martlet awareness at EBC
soon, as it's going to be a staff meeting issue now (I mentioned how
the Martlet bill might have the potential for criminalising bike shop
staff).

You do know it isn't actually Martlet? (just checking - people often get
thrown by such minor errors/jokes)

Sorry I used Martlet here as a sort combo of 'Martlew' and 'Martinet'.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Peter Clinch said:

Terry D wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I can only help
you to consider your personal requirements. You say you will be
cycling on roads. This suggests a _road_ bike. You will have no need
of heavy suspension systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend
to use the bike off-road.

Though do note that the MTB part of "hybrid" often amounts to flat bars
and gear shifters you can reach without moving your hands. I think it's
a mistake to assume they're necessarily inferior on roads. If you say
"road bike" to most cycle shops they will probably assume the current
fashion for "road bike" == "serious racing machinery" and give you
something that isn't too comfortable and doesn't necessarily take
luggage or mudguards very well.

Perhaps I should redefine the statement _road_ bike. I was of course
refering to a bike which has been assembled purely for use on roads and
which does not offer any part time off-road capability. I was thinking
in terms of light weight, properly selected gearing, narrow tyres and
reasonable luggage capacity. If the hybrid on offer has all this, then
it may well be suited for purpose. The point I was hoping to make
(perhaps not too clearly) is that the bike shops I approached when
attempting replacing an aging Raleigh, all assumed that I _would_ want
to go off-road at some point. If that were the case I would recommend
getting two bikes.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The denizens of this group include pretty serious cyclists who are aware
of the benefits of improved kit (me, for example: I have a selection of
bikes for different jobs, a couple of them have 4 figure price tags),
but sometimes they seem to forget that you can get a lot done on a basic
machine with no special kit. As is well proven by the machines most of
us started on and the things we wore, and by the millions of people
around the world who just get on their normal bikes every day and use
them to get from A to B in whatever clothes they happened to be wearing.
The extras /are/ worth it but you can add them over time and there is
no need to budget for them in your initial purchase if you are cutting
things financially fine.

I too started on an old piece of junk which lasted for less than a year.
As a regular cyclist it is amazing how quickly one becomes aware of the
shortcomings of cheapo bikes. Take for example the set of brand new cogs
that lasted only 2000 miles and the lead heavy frame that sapped energy
and eventually did me a big favour when it snapped. I think it is our
duty to explain to any newcomer who is intelligent enough to ask, just
why we are prepared to spend quite large sums of money on our bikes.

I said it before and I will say it again, if you intend to commute by
bicycle all year round then it has to be Fun. If the Fun element starts
to fade because the going gets heavy or the gears won't work properly
then the rider will give up and revert to a more sedentary form of
transport and the bike gets consigned to the shed. It is worth spending
that bit extra on some quality kit so that the riding experience is a
good one.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

Quoted message said:

I said it before and I will say it again, if you intend to commute by
bicycle all year round then it has to be Fun. If the Fun element starts
to fade because the going gets heavy or the gears won't work properly
then the rider will give up and revert to a more sedentary form of
transport and the bike gets consigned to the shed. It is worth spending
that bit extra on some quality kit so that the riding experience is a
good one.

10 brownie points to that man. Ne'er a truer word spoken.

When I had the cheapo pink peril, made from lead girders in some distant part
of eastern Europe back in the 80's I knew no better. It did not make cycling
fun, did make it hard work and having only fiver gears, hills were Not Fun And
To Be Avoided At All Costs [tm].

When the pink peril was changed for a decent spec, well-made, much-lighter
hybrid with 21 gears, my mileage literally doubled overnight with no extra
effort. That's how much difference a halfway decent bike made. I still have
that bike today (fifteen years later) and it's almost as new because it was
worhwhile being maintained by my Personal Bike Mechanic [tm], in other words,
husband...

Then, when I got an even better bike - my current daily steed, Gino, my beloved
Bianchi San Remo, I really, really started to enjoy cycling.

Of course, this led on to the purchase of another Bianchi - Luigi, my race bike
(hahahaha!! me... race bike... oxymoron...) with carbon forks... lighter
again... and Luigi is used for club rides.

A cheap bike is a false economy.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Gawnsoft:

Quoted message said:

Exactly. So 'we call the bottom gears granny gears because only a
granny would ever need to use them' to a new cyclist who is using
their granny gears a lot is a bit condescending.

And I thought it was called a granny becuase it had very few teeth. :-)

Quoted message said:

'By people who are into bikes, for people who are into bikes.' is
exactly the attitude I think it betrays, and that is true of many bike
shops.

I have the opposite problem with my LBS - they assume that everyone that
walks into the shop is completely clueless. It's painful trying to get
information out of them more specific than "that one's more expensive" or
"that one's better quality".

d.

Terry D said:

Perhaps I should redefine the statement _road_ bike. I was of course=20
refering to a bike which has been assembled purely for use on roads and=

=20

Quoted message said:

which does not offer any part time off-road capability.

First up, not having /any/ off road ability is a /very/ small subset of=20
bikes. I've been places on my old tourer with 700x28 tyres that the=20
great majority of dedicated off road designed machinery hasn't ever seen =

simply by dint of their owners never having tried that hard. I used my=20
tourer 'cause that was all I had! For not offering any off-road I think =

you'd need razor blade tyres and/or possibly a fixed gear. I've been on =

off-road trails around the Cairngorm area on my Brompton, and overtaken=20
people on MTBs that didn't have my cycling legs, and I'm nobody's idea=20
of an off-road specialist (I use my MTB a couple of times a year these=20
days).
Second, though I personally agree with the thrust of your argument, that =

"road bike" /should/ mean "bike designed for the road", the current=20
popular usage of the term often appears to equate to "UCI type road=20
racer". Daft, but true, and it is likely you'd be misunderstood=20
wandering off the street and asking for one.

Quoted message said:

in terms of light weight, properly selected gearing, narrow tyres and=20
reasonable luggage capacity.=20

Tyres don't have to be especially narrow to be worth a damn on the road. =

I use 38mm on my tourer and that's right for it. The design of the=20
tyre is more important than the width IMHO, especially if the road is a=20
bit marginal in places. And if you put slightly narrower tyres on a=20
Brompton it would fulfil the above criteria quite well, but I wouldn't=20
recommend one for the OP.
Tricky things, definitions...

Quoted message said:

attempting replacing an aging Raleigh, all assumed that I _would_ want =

Quoted message said:

to go off-road at some point. If that were the case I would recommend=20
getting two bikes.

I think quite possibly a case of bullet-point marketing combined with=20
stock. We have these and think they will work for you, we will recite=20
every feature point we can think of to help you towards a decision to=20
buy it. Something like a Ridgeback Genesis is classed as a hybrid=20
'cause it has flat bars but wouldn't be any better off road than a Dawes =

Audax (though that's still better than you suspect, I suspect!).

Quoted message said:

I too started on an old piece of junk which lasted for less than a year=

=2E=20

Quoted message said:

As a regular cyclist it is amazing how quickly one becomes aware of the=

=20

Quoted message said:

shortcomings of cheapo bikes. Take for example the set of brand new cog=

s=20

Quoted message said:

that lasted only 2000 miles and the lead heavy frame that sapped energy=

=20

Quoted message said:

and eventually did me a big favour when it snapped. I think it is our=20
duty to explain to any newcomer who is intelligent enough to ask, just =

Quoted message said:

why we are prepared to spend quite large sums of money on our bikes.

Fair point, but there's bad and there's bad, and there's great and=20
there's okay. My initial postings said IMHO not spending at least ~=A320=
0=20
on a basic no-frills bike would be a false economy for the very reasons=20
you give above. But OTOH you can get a =A3200 which will do everything=20
required quite reasonably, if not amazingly. A =A31000 bike of the same =

overall design will do them better, but I don't think to the extent that =

you wouldn't even want to use the =A3200 model.

Quoted message said:

transport and the bike gets consigned to the shed. It is worth spending=

=20

Quoted message said:

that bit extra on some quality kit so that the riding experience is a=20
good one.

Agreed, I just want to point out that "that bit extra" can actually be a =

sensible quantity of money! My old tourer cost =A3250 in 1989. 2x6 SIS =

gears, sidepull brakes, that's what you got in those days though it did=20
have alloy wheels (cor!). For the same money (not even inflation=20
adjusted!) you can now get a bike which is superior in pretty much every =

respect, yet that bike was good enough to change me from an A-B cyclist=20
to someone who'd go cycling just for enjoyment.
Avoidance of supermarket bikes and bikes crammed with stuff to make them =

look like downhill MTBs (discs and full suspension) are absolutely to be =

avoided, but a =A3200 no-frills hybrid /can/ give real cycling pleasure. =

=A3500 will get you more, but at least you're on something that will cut =

/some/ mustard, which I think is important to point out if the budget is =

tight.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

A cheap bike is a false economy.

My level of agreement with this statement entirely depends on what is=20
meant by "cheap". I think =A3200 for a bike is pretty cheap but it will =

get you a quite acceptable bike. Different people mean different things =

by "cheap", so actually quantifying is more useful IMHO. Much below=20
=A3200 I'd agree a false economy, and that figure assumes no suspension=20
and no disc brakes and tyres/gears appropriate for the use planned.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

If you say
"road bike" to most cycle shops they will probably assume the current
fashion for "road bike" == "serious racing machinery" and give you
something that isn't too comfortable and doesn't necessarily take
luggage or mudguards very well.

Not a current fashion; in traditional British cycling usage, a "road
bike" was what you rode road races on, as distinct from a track bike
(which most riders in road time trials used, one upon a time) or a
touring bike or your hack/training/clubrun bike or whatever. It has
become confused with a more recent (post-mountain bike) American usage
where road bike = that which is not a mountain bike.

Cheers

Roger

Roger Hughes said:

Not a current fashion; in traditional British cycling usage, a "road
bike" was what you rode road races on, as distinct from a track bike
(which most riders in road time trials used, one upon a time) or a
touring bike or your hack/training/clubrun bike or whatever. It has
become confused with a more recent (post-mountain bike) American usage
where road bike = that which is not a mountain bike.

I stand corrected. Though not having come across it before a couple of
years ago I must say I find the American idea rather more sensible...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch:

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected. Though not having come across it before a couple of
years ago I must say I find the American idea rather more sensible...

Imagine going into a car dealership and saying you wanted a "road car".
Would you expect them to be able to deduce your requirements from that
statement?

d.

Peter Clinch said:

the PSF said:

A cheap bike is a false economy.

Quoted message said:

My level of agreement with this statement entirely depends on what is
meant by "cheap". I think £200 for a bike is pretty cheap but it will
get you a quite acceptable bike.

Wot Pete said. £200 is pretty much the minimum you can expect to pay for a
serviceable bike, anything less is generally horrible. If you can't afford
£200 for a new bike, spend what you can afford on a seocnd hand bike that
originally cost not less than £200 at today's prices.

So, the cutoff point between "cheap" (i.e. [censored]) and "low cost" (i.e. good
value functional bike) is £200, in my estimation.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!