Buying First "Adult" Bike, Very Confused

[grandallj]

Since a thread like this is really just an opportunity to evangelize about one’s own choices, I’ll add that there is a steel frame Specialized Tricross, I ride one, and I love it. The MSRP is above the Volpe or the Space Horse, but it has disc brakes and maybe other features that would set it apart. I believe 2013 is its last model year and accordingly, you may be able to negotiate a discount at the Specialized dealer of your choice. I’m not affiliated with Spokes, Etc., but it’s where I got my bike, I loved shopping there, and the last time I was at the Quaker Lane shop, they had several of the steel Tricross bikes in stock.

That said, if I hadn’t sprung for the Spesh, I probably would have ended up with the Volpe . . . .

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 65271 wrote:

Clearly a rant is in order:

When you get down to it, bicycles are just the sum of their components. The components, for the most part are standardized. As more and more frames are made in a few plants in China, these are also becoming standardized.[/quote]

A rant sounds good. I think a bike is more than just a collection of parts. There are a lot of different parts, and a lot of different ways to put them together. If there weren’t, there would just be one bike. Sure, a big Chinese factory can make a lot of similar looking bikes, but different purchasers can specify different components (including different manufacturing tolerances and materials) which can have a significant effect on the finished product. (Chinese manufacturers have a reputation for shoddy work, but most of that is on the western companies writing the specifications. The manufacturers can do better work but there is more profit reselling junk. A lot of the better stuff is only seen in their domestic market because it isn’t as profitable to export.)

Quote:

The original poster was looking for a certain type of bike at a lower price point and the easiest way to get a new bike of a certain type with certain specs is to go to the net.

Buying off the net is great if you like buying off the net, otherwise it sucks. For a generic component it is tolerable because there isn’t much to go wrong. For a whole bike there is a lot more potential for problems. When I got my last bike there were some problems from the manufacturer. The guys at bikenetic dealt with the manufacturer and I just got the bike I wanted (even though it took a couple of rounds on their end). Had it been an Internet purchase that would have been me on the phone (which I hate) and probably would have involved me shipping parts around on my dime. I’d rather pay someone else to deal with that, though I understand that other people love to work the system. Different strokes & all. Doesn’t mean that bikes direct can’t sell a decent bike, just means I want to touch a bike before I buy it, and that isn’t possible at a bikes direct price point.

Quote:

On the weight difference between different steel bikes, since most of the components are the same, the differences are likely due to differences in the frames and wheelsets. This suggests that the heavier bikes have stronger wheels and frames

That actually does not follow. Heavier doesn’t imply stronger unless you are comparing the same material and the same design. In fact, there are a number of ways to shape and assemble the metal, and a number of grades of steel. In general, the higher grades are stronger, so can make a thinner and lighter tube for a given strength. Similarly, the shape of the tubes and welding method affects the strength, with more complex techniques costing more. A high tensile Walmart bike will weigh a ton but won’t be particularly strong. A heavy single wall wheel with straight guage spokes will be weaker than a good quality double wall box rim with double butted spokes.

As far as I know, bikes direct doesn’t sell any steel bikes of a grade higher than Reynolds 520, which is a way to keep the costs down.

That said, bikes actually designed for touring will typically be built heavier and will not have thin walled, high strength tubes (because their usage profile makes getting dinged by luggage fairly likely). But, a lot of touring-labeled bikes are not actually designed for touring, and the weight isn’t coming from strength. (An easy way to tell is to look at the crank: a loaded touring bike doesn’t need a 50t ring unless it’s being peddled down a cliff; that usually means the manufacturer just slapped a series group on the frame with no thought involved. Also look at the wheels.) I think in a lot of cases the touring label just means “we slapped a rack and cheap bar end shifters onto our cross frame”.

[Hancockbs]

@mstone 65275 wrote:

I’ll play contrarian and say that your initial instinct is correct: you may well turn out to not like cycling, and it might not make sense for you to spend as much on a bike as someone already obsessed. The internet is bad for reinforcing biases, and bike forums are notorious for pushing people to upgrade components that normal people won’t be able to distinguish. It may well be that only an expensive bike will work for you, but make sure you’ve actually tried cheaper options. Don’t get upsold if you’re satisfied.

While this is not bad advice for a first timer who is budget conscious, as a relative new comer (about two years this time around) I have now bought four bikes and sold the first two that I bought. I currently have one aluminum and one carbon, but both have Ultegra components. I will not buy another bike that has anything less. It is the components and fit more than the frame material that counts in my book. Quality components cost more, but are WELL worth the investment. I enjoy riding these bikes on a daily basis. The others caused frustrations because they did not shift well and constantly required adjustments.

If you are testing the waters, you might be okay going cheap to see if you are going to enjoy the sport, but realize that part of your perception will be colored by the tools you are using and that if you do enjoy the sport, you WILL upgrade. If you have a reasonable expectation that you are committed for the journey, go for quality the first time. It will cost you less in the long run and you will be happier from the start. If it doesn’t work out, there will be a better market for resale.

Hope to ride with you one of these days! Good luck with the purchase.

[mstone]

I’ll counter by saying that I put most of my miles on the bike that has 2300 components and it makes me very happy. It does not require constant adjustment, and it’s functionally equivalent to the weekend bike with the fancier components (though with fewer gears). I can certainly tell the difference, but it isn’t anything that makes the utility bike any less functional. I’ve kicked around the idea of upgrading it, but I’m not sure it makes sense to put bling on a bike that finds itself sleeping outside in the woods, or that I trust a 10 speed drivetrain as much as an 8 in those same woods. (I had no cell phone signal for two days out in the wilds of WV last weekend.) When I hear people say that they can’t live without a certain component level I find myself wondering if they just had really bad luck or are deluding themselves or what. Maybe you need to be a racer or something. But even then, it wasn’t that long ago that people were winning the TdF on components less functional than today’s Claris.

Anyway, someone should decide if they are Yehuda or Joe before they start spending a lot of money.

[Hancockbs]

@mstone 65290 wrote:

But even then, it wasn’t that long ago that people were winning the TdF on components less functional than today’s Claris.

Yes, but they were the top components of the day, they were equivalent to what every other competitor was using at the time, and they were serviced daily. If they are as good as the components in use today at the TdF, they would still be in use there.

I’m by no means a racer, but I do appreciate equipment that works well and doesn’t require more time cleaning and servicing that riding. It is the same reason I use electricity to light my house instead of candles or lanterns. Perhaps I had bad luck with the Sora and 105 components. The Tiagra worked okay, but the Ultegra has been a pure pleasure. I would still ride without them if I couldn’t have them, but to me, they are well worth the added cost. Of course, your milage may vary.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 65294 wrote:

I do appreciate equipment that works well and doesn’t require more time cleaning and servicing that riding

This is the rhetoric I don’t understand. If you are spending more time cleaning and servicing than riding, you’re doing something wrong and it has nothing to do with the components.

And it does a disservice to someone considering cycling to suggest that if they don’t buy the second-highest component level in Shimano’s line that their bike won’t work right. Sorry, but that’s nuts.

[Hancockbs]

Okay, mstone, you got me on that one, I exagerated. Would you prefer: “I prefer using equipment that works well and takes less time cleaning and maintaining that cheaper equipment.”?

I think you understood what I intended and are just being a jackhole at this point. I won’t bother responding directly to you in the future.

[Rod Smith]

Yeah but stock derailleurs on my cheap hybrid lasted for over a decade and I don’t think I ever cleaned them. Shifted fine

[jabberwocky]

I’ve owned 105 and ultegra (and sram red) and honestly couldn’t tell much functional difference between them. I think that, these days, anything above the bargain basement junk is going to function perfectly well and be plenty durable (ime, cheaper groups are actually more durable, since they are less concerned with weight savings). Sure, the higher end stuff is marginally smoother, lighter and looks a lot better, but I don’t think it’s in any way necessary. I’ve test ridden the modern tiagra group and it is quite good.

Ultegra stuff is great, but just the group costs more than the op’s stated budget. It isn’t worth the money in that price range.

[Hancockbs]

@jabberwocky 65299 wrote:

but just the group costs more than the op’s stated budget. It isn’t worth the money in that price range.

FWIW, my aluminum bike with Ultegra was purchased new at a LBS for $1300. Yes, that is more than the stated budget, but my comments came from the standpoint that it might be worth considering upping the budget. Apparently, my perspective is not consistent with others in the forum, so that should obviously be taken into account, but I stand by my statement that I wouldn’t go back to a lower rated component set.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 65296 wrote:

Okay, mstone, you got me on that one, I exagerated. Would you prefer: “I prefer using equipment that works well and takes less time cleaning and maintaining that cheaper equipment.”?

I think you understood what I intended and are just being a jackhole at this point. I won’t bother responding directly to you in the future.

Not really, I honestly think you’re still overstating things. Leave it at a simple “I like it better”. There are too many people riding around on perfectly functional sub-ultegra components (for more than a year, even!) for them to be as dysfunctional and maintenance-intensive as you’re suggesting. If that opinion offends you, sorry. I won’t even call you names.

[DismalScientist]

The internet bikes I suggested. actually had better components then the brand name bikes the OP mentioned.
As for touring bikes with bad frames, I guess I should just toss my Trek 620 with double butted Reynolds 531 since it came with a 52 tooth chainring on a Shimano N600 crankset.

My real point is that true touring bikes likely come with heavier duty wheelsets than cross bikes that are more designed for racing. For commuting, smaller riders, and light touring, this might not matter.

That said, one should figure out what specs are important and act accordingly.

[TwoWheelsDC]

Fuji Cross 3.0

/thread

I don’t own one… I have a Volpe, actually. I like it, but if I could do it over again, I’d probably get something else like a Fuji Cross or a Raleigh Roper. They may not have the cachet, but they are a much bigger bang for the buck.

[hozn]

I would view your first adult bike as a throw-away; you will figure out the type of bike you want/need during the course of owning (and hopefully riding!) the bike you buy. Your body will also change as you ride more –becoming more flexible, etc. — so the choice that seems obvious now may be different in the future.

So, probably do what mstone says and spend as little as possible to prove this out. But don’t shortchange yourself too much or you won’t want to ride the bike you get

And to that end, I think Dismal offers excellent advice with the online retailer links. If you have been sized at a LBS and loosely know what you want, then online could work. It helps if you have some ambition to do the mechanical stuff yourself too. If you plan to take the bike to the shop when you need the drive train replaced, then maybe sticking with the LBS is a good idea.

I think vvill is also right that components are more significant than frame material. Steel may feel awesome, but it is likely the things that go with the steel bike you are feeling, such as geometry or the wheels (or tires). The frame material tends to become significant only when pushed — e.g. my carbon bike is noticeably stiffer when standing and climbing hills than the titanium frame it replaced. I don’t disagree that you could feel the difference between an aluminum and a steel frame if everything else was identical, but it would be subtle. And there are big differences to be felt in saddle, wheelset and tire choices.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 65304 wrote:

The internet bikes I suggested. actually had better components then the brand name bikes the OP mentioned.
As for touring bikes with bad frames, I guess I should just toss my Trek 620 with double butted Reynolds 531 since it came with a 52 tooth chainring

I’m sure BD did have a higher level groupset, that’s their general practice: they put relatively more of their cost into the group than the frame, to the point that people seriously consider buying the bike for the parts and tossing the frame. Their marketing strategy is to put the money into the group because it’s easy to advertise that (you will rarely see a discussion from the BD owner that doesn’t talk about components). Maybe the end result works for you, maybe it doesn’t. The point was not to look at any one thing (“ooh, it’s got an unobtanium frame”, “ooh, it’s got an ultraviolet group”) and rather to look at the whole package and how well the parts are integrated for your particular needs. The frame on a vintage Trek 620 is nice, but a 28/28 low isn’t what I’d want to actually load up that frame and then try to ride it up a mountain. It’s not really a fair conversation, though, as the parts available 30 years ago aren’t exactly the same as what you can find today. Trek also was bouncing around in those days trying to figure out exactly what they wanted to be selling. Some years it was touring, some years it was “sport touring”. Some years they had long chainstays designed for panniers, some years they did not. Many had nice frames but are really better suited to rando or light touring than loaded touring (though you can obviously tour on anything you want, and a lot of those bikes did the transamerica). I guess that was kind of my point about looking close at ALL the specs and trying the bike and seeing if it works FOR YOU.

[Author]

Posts