Cycling - new gear pawn opportunity?
Discussion
Hey,
After a few years of a break in going out on my bike, I had to refurbish my Trek 4400 a bit.
Needed a new fork, service and drivetrain.
My local bike shop quoted me about £350 for a Rock Shox fork, and other bits.
It's not a fookin car! My Merc service was less than that!
Whenever I want to read up on the advancements in bike tech over the last decade, it all looks like bike mags are just advertising vehicles for manufacturers. Sickening.
Who the F needs a £7k bike?
If I want to go fast and not get tired - I take the Merc.
Bike is meant to be fun and I'm supposed to get wasted after a few hours
In the end I found a second hand Trek Fuel EX, paid around £700 and love it.
No need to upgrade ANYTHING. Mind you, the discs squeak like b
ds.
Just some less flashy shoes (SPD).
What do you think?
Are bikes the new wk fest?
I'm also a photographer, it's to some extend similar there too. Look at the size of my camera body and lens
After a few years of a break in going out on my bike, I had to refurbish my Trek 4400 a bit.
Needed a new fork, service and drivetrain.
My local bike shop quoted me about £350 for a Rock Shox fork, and other bits.
It's not a fookin car! My Merc service was less than that!
Whenever I want to read up on the advancements in bike tech over the last decade, it all looks like bike mags are just advertising vehicles for manufacturers. Sickening.
Who the F needs a £7k bike?
If I want to go fast and not get tired - I take the Merc.
Bike is meant to be fun and I'm supposed to get wasted after a few hours
In the end I found a second hand Trek Fuel EX, paid around £700 and love it.
No need to upgrade ANYTHING. Mind you, the discs squeak like b
ds.Just some less flashy shoes (SPD).
What do you think?
Are bikes the new w
k fest?I'm also a photographer, it's to some extend similar there too. Look at the size of my camera body and lens
Master Bean said:
If you've got the money you might as well spend it on something you enjoy. Pinarello or Rolex or Ferrari.
My point is - a fast bike with a fat bloke on it won't be fast.The tipping point for me was a review of a Chain Tool by some blog.
They wrote 3 pages on it, lots of pictures, they even had a picture on a scale. WTF
Someone might reasonably comment that you spent £700 on a bike when you could have got something for £400 and had just as much fun. Where's the 'right' level of expense? I don't understand this obsession with other people's expenditure. It's their money.
I have 3 road bikes because I want three, not because I need three.
I have 3 road bikes because I want three, not because I need three.
The reason why phenomenally good bikes are available for under a grand is because fat middle aged blokes buy the £7k stuff and if trickles down. If they're happier having the best, who cares?
It keeps bike shops alive, it pays for R&D. Yes, pro cycling blah blah blah but that's mostly a marketing expense for the factory teams.
It keeps bike shops alive, it pays for R&D. Yes, pro cycling blah blah blah but that's mostly a marketing expense for the factory teams.
I don't care so much about the price itself, but the pretentious nature of bike related articles.
And manufacturers play into it very well.
Just read some articles on 26" vs 27.5" vs 29" to realizr that you really need 3 bikes for the same thing - and will never be riding the right one at a time, wishing to be on the one left at home.
Stuff like electric derailleurs, that have to be charged, tubeless tyres which are impossible to service on the trail, all to get some miniscule speed advantage (I guess).
Who needs this crap
But when you want to read up on it, everyone's gushing and saying it's the next best thing. Buy both, otherwise you won't be worthy
I do most servicing myself, and I find the necessary reliance on bike shops to service bikes quite disturbing.
Just go out and have fun!
Rant over.
And manufacturers play into it very well.
Just read some articles on 26" vs 27.5" vs 29" to realizr that you really need 3 bikes for the same thing - and will never be riding the right one at a time, wishing to be on the one left at home.
Stuff like electric derailleurs, that have to be charged, tubeless tyres which are impossible to service on the trail, all to get some miniscule speed advantage (I guess).
Who needs this crap
But when you want to read up on it, everyone's gushing and saying it's the next best thing. Buy both, otherwise you won't be worthy
I do most servicing myself, and I find the necessary reliance on bike shops to service bikes quite disturbing.
Just go out and have fun!
Rant over.
MTB's diminishing returns means £2.5K seems to be the sweet spot. Road bikes £1500. Buy a bike those sort of figures and everything will work really well, stay working really well for a long time and unless you are a National Champion level rider its unlikely you'll go any faster if someone sat you on a £7k bike and sent you down the same track.
Sometimes it appears expensive price tags are the appeal for some people and they will buy whatevers the most expensive regardless of if its function is actually inferior to a cheaper option.
Sometimes it appears expensive price tags are the appeal for some people and they will buy whatevers the most expensive regardless of if its function is actually inferior to a cheaper option.
Its not hard servicing a mountain bike so other then a few tool costs, its worth just doing it yourself and saving money in the long term. I have actually come to really like tinkering with the bikes I have. Mainstream bike parts arent that expensive as long as you dont go sticking the top level parts on everything.
It is an odd original post to say £350 is too much, then spend £700. Thats man maths at its finest. (Id do the same)
I cant talk though...ive 5 mountain bikes (3 hard tails, 2 full sus's) and one of the full sus machines is a Trek Fuel Ex which has been a great bike. Good xc machine, does everything fairly well.
I dont NEED 1 MTB never mind 5 of them but I like them and have pretty much built them all except one from the ground up. My servicing costs this year....£18 of parts
It is an odd original post to say £350 is too much, then spend £700. Thats man maths at its finest. (Id do the same)
I cant talk though...ive 5 mountain bikes (3 hard tails, 2 full sus's) and one of the full sus machines is a Trek Fuel Ex which has been a great bike. Good xc machine, does everything fairly well.
I dont NEED 1 MTB never mind 5 of them but I like them and have pretty much built them all except one from the ground up. My servicing costs this year....£18 of parts
BenGismo said:
It is an odd original post to say £350 is too much, then spend £700. Thats man maths at its finest. (Id do the same)
s
The old bike was 13 years old. Cosmetically sucks, all nuts and bolts rusted. And it was a hard tail.s
I kept it as is for city duties, the new one is SPD equipped for trails.
qska said:
But when you want to read up on it, everyone's gushing and saying it's the next best thing. Buy both, otherwise you won't be worthy
But that's the nature of Bike magazines (and car, motorbike, etc, etc, etc mags), they're thrown all the latest stuff by the manufacturers and of course they're going to gush about it and tell you to buy it. If they didn't then the stream of free expensive stuff would dry up.But I'll stick with my 26" full susser until it no longer remains viable to keep it running which will be a good while yet touch wood. I service most the bits on it myself, my forks and shock go off to TF when they need to be revived. That doesn't, however, stop me appreciating the latest tech, larger wheels etc it's just I don't feel the need to spunk my hard earned wedge on it though.
Edited by oj113 on Wednesday 7th September 21:56
When people compare the cost of cars and their servicing with the cost of bikes/cycling it makes me want to cry.
I justify the cost of servicing an item by considering only the pleasure/use I'm going to get out of it. That's what seems logical to me.
For example, my "best" bike cost me £2,500, and I spend around £300 per year maintaining it. I could do it myself and save money, but I can't be arsed. Equates to 12% of the original cost. My M3 cost me £25,000 and I spend £1,000 per year maintaining it (unless something goes wrong). Equates to 4% of the original cost. If I was illogical enough to try to compare servicing cost to value/complexity of the item (like you would with an investment asset that you get no use or pleasure from), then the M3 servicing would seem like much better value.
Fortunately, I'm able to apply logic to the situation and therefore appreciate that 250 hours on my bike, improving my fitness, health and happiness is easily worth £300 a year, irrespective of how much I spend servicing my M3 or the family Golf. Riding my bike brings something to my life that a car could never achieve, and vice versa, so comparing the two is pointless.
I was in decathlon the other day looking at one of their rather good value B Twin bikes for about £700. Then, some chav walks past and says to his mate "£700?! You could buy a small car for that!". Head in hands moment. If you're in the market for a brand new bike, then why would you want a rusty old Astra instead? Apple vs Orange.
If my bike needs a complete overhaul with all bearings, chain, cassette, tyres, cables being replaced, it might cost me a couple hundred quid at the LBS. Equivalent on the M3? Thousands maybe tens of thousands. The same money on the M3 would get me an oil service if I was lucky. Apple vs Orange.
Your average person can buy all the bike they could ever need for less than £500. Most fit/experienced amateur cyclists can buy all the bike they could ever need for less than £3,000. Someone out there is always going to spend say £5,000 on a bike they don't need, purely because they want it and it feels like good value to them. If we must insist on comparing money spent on bikes with money spent on cars then consider that someone out there is always going to spend the best part of £100,000 on an optioned-up Porsche 911, even if something a fraction of the price would have bought them the same level of satisfaction. Whose logic is worse? The cyclist spending £4,000 too much on a bike or the motorist spending £80,000 too much on a car?
It's a concept that can be applied to life and the purchasing of goods in general, and is certainly not limited to bikes. People will always waste money on stuff they don't need, whether their into cars, bikes, collectables, photography, model railways, whatever it is that floats their boat.
I justify the cost of servicing an item by considering only the pleasure/use I'm going to get out of it. That's what seems logical to me.
For example, my "best" bike cost me £2,500, and I spend around £300 per year maintaining it. I could do it myself and save money, but I can't be arsed. Equates to 12% of the original cost. My M3 cost me £25,000 and I spend £1,000 per year maintaining it (unless something goes wrong). Equates to 4% of the original cost. If I was illogical enough to try to compare servicing cost to value/complexity of the item (like you would with an investment asset that you get no use or pleasure from), then the M3 servicing would seem like much better value.
Fortunately, I'm able to apply logic to the situation and therefore appreciate that 250 hours on my bike, improving my fitness, health and happiness is easily worth £300 a year, irrespective of how much I spend servicing my M3 or the family Golf. Riding my bike brings something to my life that a car could never achieve, and vice versa, so comparing the two is pointless.
I was in decathlon the other day looking at one of their rather good value B Twin bikes for about £700. Then, some chav walks past and says to his mate "£700?! You could buy a small car for that!". Head in hands moment. If you're in the market for a brand new bike, then why would you want a rusty old Astra instead? Apple vs Orange.
If my bike needs a complete overhaul with all bearings, chain, cassette, tyres, cables being replaced, it might cost me a couple hundred quid at the LBS. Equivalent on the M3? Thousands maybe tens of thousands. The same money on the M3 would get me an oil service if I was lucky. Apple vs Orange.
Your average person can buy all the bike they could ever need for less than £500. Most fit/experienced amateur cyclists can buy all the bike they could ever need for less than £3,000. Someone out there is always going to spend say £5,000 on a bike they don't need, purely because they want it and it feels like good value to them. If we must insist on comparing money spent on bikes with money spent on cars then consider that someone out there is always going to spend the best part of £100,000 on an optioned-up Porsche 911, even if something a fraction of the price would have bought them the same level of satisfaction. Whose logic is worse? The cyclist spending £4,000 too much on a bike or the motorist spending £80,000 too much on a car?
It's a concept that can be applied to life and the purchasing of goods in general, and is certainly not limited to bikes. People will always waste money on stuff they don't need, whether their into cars, bikes, collectables, photography, model railways, whatever it is that floats their boat.
Edited by NatAsp on Wednesday 7th September 23:02
Edited by NatAsp on Wednesday 7th September 23:03
qska said:
Master Bean said:
If you've got the money you might as well spend it on something you enjoy. Pinarello or Rolex or Ferrari.
My point is - a fast bike with a fat bloke on it won't be fast.Master Bean said:
An old doddery man in a Ferrari. Same thing really. Expensive bikes are pointless, £1-2k gets you everything you could ever need. I just look and appreciate their shiny parts.
That's a ridiculously sweeping statement. It completely depends on what you're doing with the bike.And it also depends how deep into the sport you are.
I have a lot more fun on my 'above that price range' bike than I have done on an 'in that price range' bike, because I can hit stuff stuff harder an faster knowing that the bike is more capable of getting me out of trouble when it goes wrong, and will withstand more punishment without having to worry about catastrophic failures.
If you don't want to spend large amounts on a bike, fine, but it doesn't mean that other people are wrong to. They may well be using the bike in a completely different way, or be more finely attuned to how the bike reacts to changing certain componentry. Or they may just prefer the feel of another bike.
qska said:
Stuff like electric derailleurs, that have to be charged, tubeless tyres which are impossible to service on the trail, all to get some miniscule speed advantage (I guess).
Who needs this crap
But when you want to read up on it, everyone's gushing and saying it's the next best thing. Buy both, otherwise you won't be worthy
.
Electric shifting - it's simply next level in terms of performance, same as XTR is better than XT. You don't need it, but it's really nice to have. Auto trimming gears is a marvel.Who needs this crap
But when you want to read up on it, everyone's gushing and saying it's the next best thing. Buy both, otherwise you won't be worthy
.
Tubeless tyres are a revelation. Genuinely. Wide rims and tubeless tyres allow you to run lower pressures, and give you a much more supple ride. You can smash into stuff with a far smaller risk of punctures and snakebites, wade through brambles and watch as the tyres magically heal themselves back up. As for impossible to service on the trail - unless you are silly with the pressures, then it's likely that whatever killed your tyre running tubeless would also have killed it with tubes. Plus all you do is, just like with tubes, carry a spare tube and a bit of card in you pack, and if you get an issue, patch the tyre and throw a tube in. It's no different.
And it's not like a tubeless conversion is expensive. It'll cost you under £30 and take half an hour of your time.
Just because you don't understand something, have never tried it, or don't personally notice the difference, it doesn't mean nobody else does. And if if they don't if having that more expensive thing makes them enjoy the sport more for whatever reason, then it's all good
FD3Si said:
I have a lot more fun on my 'above that price range' bike than I have done on an 'in that price range' bike, because I can hit stuff stuff harder an faster knowing that the bike is more capable of getting me out of trouble when it goes wrong, and will withstand more punishment without having to worry about catastrophic failures.
Do you actually know that the more expensive bike is stronger/tougher than the £1000-2000 bike, or is it just that you have more faith in it because it is more expensive and is therefore perceived to be better quality? boyse7en said:
Do you actually know that the more expensive bike is stronger/tougher than the £1000-2000 bike, or is it just that you have more faith in it because it is more expensive and is therefore perceived to be better quality?
In my highly representative sample, I've broken several 1-2k bikes catastropically, and I haven't broken my 3.5k+ bike yet 
Certainly, if your ride bikes hard, you'll find stuff breaks whatever the cost. If you hang about with mountain bikers who ride downhill, Enduro, and dirt,you'll likely notice that the more expensive stuff tends to break less. But that is a slight generalisation - for instance I'm currently replacing my £70 bottom bracket as the bearings have crapped out after 3 months dusty riding.
Another take is that the cheaper stuff may be jsut as strong, but the more expensive stuff is jsut as strong, but lighter, making the bike feel more responsive. A 28lb trail bike will (again, generalising) likely be a lot more fun to chuck about than a 34lb trail bike.
Edited by FD3Si on Thursday 8th September 09:22
FD3Si said:
Plus all you do is, just like with tubes, carry a spare tube and a bit of card in you pack, and if you get an issue, patch the tyre and throw a tube in. It's no different.
And it's not like a tubeless conversion is expensive. It'll cost you under £30 and take half an hour of your time.
Just because you don't understand something, have never tried it, or don't personally notice the difference, it doesn't mean nobody else does. And if if they don't if having that more expensive thing makes them enjoy the sport more for whatever reason, then it's all good
Oh how I don't agree - I tried to take these "tubeless ready" tyres off, and ran out of curse words.And it's not like a tubeless conversion is expensive. It'll cost you under £30 and take half an hour of your time.
Just because you don't understand something, have never tried it, or don't personally notice the difference, it doesn't mean nobody else does. And if if they don't if having that more expensive thing makes them enjoy the sport more for whatever reason, then it's all good
An hour later, tyre levers almost broken, Tarzan shouts done - I managed to get the b*tards off - I would never want to do it on the trail.
qska said:
Oh how I don't agree - I tried to take these "tubeless ready" tyres off, and ran out of curse words.
An hour later, tyre levers almost broken, Tarzan shouts done - I managed to get the b*tards off - I would never want to do it on the trail.
That will be due to your particular tyre/tube combination. An hour later, tyre levers almost broken, Tarzan shouts done - I managed to get the b*tards off - I would never want to do it on the trail.
I have had the same issues on tubed tyres, it's nothing new or peculiar to 'tubeless' systems. (An IRC Kujo on a Mavic D521 around the turn of the century springs to mine)
I helped a friend go tubeless on monday with Maxxis Ardents on whatever rims Whyte supply on the 901. needed 1 flimsy plastic lever to remove the tyre, and it went back on without any levers at all.
My Maxxis High Rollers are a cinch to get on Easton Arc 30s. Both 'tubeless ready'. The same tyres came off a set of Mavic Crossmax XLs with barely a sniff of a tyre lever.
Edited by FD3Si on Thursday 8th September 10:02
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff