local bike shops — how to choose

[Certifried]

@xmlwave 25501 wrote:

It’s like going from Inspiron to XPS; eventually, I may get Alienware.

Alienware is crap now that Dell owns them. Stay away!

[xmlwave]

Thanks for all the advice!

vvill — you bring an interesting point about the steel bike. Up until yesterday I was under the impression that steel bikes are much heavier than aluminum; however, when I checked the Charge bike yesterday, I was surprised to discover that this is not [entirely] true. I will try to go for a spin on that one and see how it feels.
KLizotte — I found Hudson Trail Outfitters location not too far from work, so I will check them out today. Unfortunately, Spokes is not anywhere close to me, but I may check them out on the weekend. And you are right about the accessories — I may need to get some of them.
ShawnoftheDread — I will do some online research to compare the Fuji 2.0 vs 3.0. The guy from Performance Bicycle indicated that the upgrade in performance was well worth the premium.

One more thing — is it acceptable to try and negotiate on the price? I imagine this is absolute no-no in some stores, but I expect that others may be flexible about this.

[jabberwocky]

@xmlwave 25929 wrote:

One more thing — is it acceptable to try and negotiate on the price? I imagine this is absolute no-no in some stores, but I expect that others may be flexible about this.

Depends on the shop and the bike. Margins on bikes in that price range are usually pretty thin, and seeing how thats the most common price range the shop would probably be less willing to negotiate on price. If its an older model you might have more luck (since the shop is more motivated to move it).

You might have better luck trying for a discount on any accessories (helmet, bags, racks, shoes, etc) and buying them at the same time as the bike.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@xmlwave 25929 wrote:

ShawnoftheDread — I will do some online research to compare the Fuji 2.0 vs 3.0. The guy from Performance Bicycle indicated that the upgrade in performance was well worth the premium.

This seems to be a dubious claim at best. The 2.0 has a Tiagra RD, which is a decent road component. The 3.0 has an Acera RD, which is a “recreational” component. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems the 2.0 has the better component here. FD and crank seem to be roughly the same and on a hybrid (or even most road bikes, for that matter), it will hardly make a difference. Interestingly, bikepedia shows the 2.0 as being a full pound lighter than the 3.0. So yeah, unless you seriously like the way the 3.0 rides, the 2.0 seems to be the better value.

[xmlwave]

@TwoWheelsDC 25933 wrote:

…it seems the 2.0 has the better component here.

You are right — 2.0 is more advanced and expensive model compared to 3.0. The salesman from the store indicated that 2.0 is worth more than the $200 premium over 3.0.

[vvill]

Steel vs aluminum – the general thinking is that steel is more comfortable and lasts longer but is heavier and can rust, but there are high end steel bikes though that are very light and like any material, the end results vary from frame to frame. The only steel bike I’ve owned was a MTB that was stolen so I can’t really make any comparisons based on experience.

That Charge bike from the pictures does appear to have a fairly aggressive (less upright) set up with the saddle higher than the handlebars which may not be ideal depending on your riding style.

Don’t forget to factor in accessories and maintenance costs. I think I’d rather spend $200 on accessories than on incremental upgrades from low-level to mid-low level components. If you are buying at Performance, they have a “Team Performance” membership. Costs about $30/yr I think, but you get 10% store credit on any purchases including bikes, so it could be worth your while for 1 year if you do spend $600. Performance as well as Bikenetic in Falls Church offer free lifetime basic maintenance with new bikes purchases from them.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@xmlwave 25934 wrote:

You are right — 2.0 is more advanced and expensive model compared to 3.0. The salesman from the store indicated that 2.0 is worth more than the $200 premium over 3.0.

Ooooooh, I thought the 2.0 was cheaper and the guy was saying that the 3.0 components were worth the expense. Regardless of my mistake, I still say get the cheaper of the two. Although Tiagra is “better” it’s doubtful you’d notice the difference.

[vvill]

@TwoWheelsDC 25937 wrote:

Although Tiagra is “better” it’s doubtful you’d notice the difference.

Yep, especially for flat bar shifters. If it were dropbar road style shifters I would spring for Tiagra over Sora.

[KelOnWheels]

@vvill 25936 wrote:

I think I’d rather spend $200 on accessories than on incremental upgrades from low-level to mid-low level components.

This.

PS – STEEL IS REAL!

[ShawnoftheDread]

@TwoWheelsDC 25933 wrote:

This seems to be a dubious claim at best. The 2.0 has a Tiagra RD, which is a decent road component. The 3.0 has an Acera RD, which is a “recreational” component. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems the 2.0 has the better component here. FD and crank seem to be roughly the same and on a hybrid (or even most road bikes, for that matter), it will hardly make a difference. Interestingly, bikepedia shows the 2.0 as being a full pound lighter than the 3.0. So yeah, unless you seriously like the way the 3.0 rides, the 2.0 seems to be the better value.

Wait, are you saying it is worth the $200 price difference, or that the shop guy’s claim is dubious? One pound weight difference, comparable crank, but a better RD doesn’t seem worth it to me for entry-level. You’d more than make up for the weight difference by leaving your u-lock on the rack at work.

Never mind: just saw your later response. Carry on.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@KelOnWheels 25939 wrote:

This.

PS – STEEL IS REAL!

Though aluminum is real too. Ever been hit in the head with a beer can? Real.

[jabberwocky]

@KelOnWheels 25939 wrote:

PS – STEEL IS REAL!

I used to believe this, until I broke pretty much every steel bike I’ve ever owned. :p

[TwoWheelsDC]

@ShawnoftheDread 25956 wrote:

Wait, are you saying it is worth the $200 price difference, or that the shop guy’s claim is dubious? One pound weight difference, comparable crank, but a better RD doesn’t seem worth it to me for entry-level. You’d more than make up for the weight difference by leaving your u-lock on the rack at work.

Never mind: just saw your later response. Carry on.

Sorry for the confusion…I was just assuming the 3.0 was the more expensive of the two when I was looking at the specs. Fuji may need to work on it’s naming scheme…

[TwoWheelsDC]

@KelOnWheels 25939 wrote:

This.

PS – STEEL IS REAL!

Aluminum sure feels real when it’s rattling the teeth out of my skull it’s worth it though because my aluminum bike shoots up hills compared to my steel bike. The difference in acceleration “feel” is very noticeable…not as much give.

[GuyContinental]

I’m a pretty big fan of supporting thy LBS but Nashbar has two dang good deals right now on a generic steel 105 touring/commuter
http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_522412_-1___203588

and a generic Force (or Rival for less) road bike
http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_533290_-1___203588

You’d have a hard time buying that Force group (new) for that…

[Author]

Posts