Bicycle science

[El Greco]

I don't know anything about bikes but reading about the prices here I wonder whether anyone knows what's the cost of manufacturing those $3000-$5000 models, and what's the profit margin of the dealers. I mean, with twice that money you can get a new Korean car, for Ed's sake.

 

[e-sabbath]

It's not just weight, though. It's durability. I've bent older frames, especially the steel ones. Just on normal terrain. I've actually torqued them on some of my older mountain bikes, twisted them, from the chain over time.
More expensive gearsets (D... aw, I can't spell it today.) tend to be a bit more reliable over time. Now, again, we're not talking 2000+, but rather, going from 200 to 500.

My advice: Kevlar tires, for keeping them from getting stupid flats.
Underseat tool kit: Spare chain, chain tool, spare tube, the three things you use to remount a tire, one of those multi-allen wrenches. (And some quarters)
Pump, water bottle.
Blackburn mountain rack. First, for putting things on. Second, for stopping splash from going up your back. Solid top instead of the hollow ones.
Oh, and road tires, not knobby ones. Not slicks, semi-slicks will do.
Baskets for feet at a minimum, as well. Much better exercise than not having them. And easier than dealing with those expensive bike shoe crap.
Good bike gloves. As much to deal with windchill of the knuckles as anything. Good rims don't bend as much, too.
A good seat. Learn where to adjust it, too. Higher than you think.
On preview, what flimflam said. Weight of a bike is one of those things that isn't important when you're cycling. Just annoying when you're in the parts where it becomes difficult.
Remember, 95 to 99 percent of your effort comes from wind resistance, not from bike weight.

 

[CurtC]

I don't know about these baskets, but locking my feet to the pedals has been how I ride bikes since I had my nicey. And modern pedals allow you to unclasp by wriggling your foot. With that bike I had to plan for it and open some straps to get my foot out.

Yep, I rode a lot of miles having to reach down and loosen the strap before the shoe/cleat could come out, and never had a problem with it. Then I finally upgraded to clipless in the early 90s, and I thought I was the last person on Earth to do so. On the other hand, I don't think that the old cleat/strap system would be acceptable at all on a mountain bike. There are times when I can't even twist my foot loose fast enough with my SPDs.

As to your original question, here's my philosophy. A $1000 bike is quite a bit better than a $500 bike. A $1500 bike is better than a $1000 bike, but the performance delta is smaller than the step from 500 to 1000.

Similarly, for every extra $500 you spend, you get a better bike, but the incremental difference gets smaller and smaller. How much you want to spend is up to you - there are people for whom the upgrade from $3000 to $3500 is worth it, but it sounds like you're not one of them. From what you've described, I'd recommend the $1000 to $1500 range.

 

[Pipirr]

I can't imagine what benefits come from a bike costing more than 500 dollars. Ten years ago, I cycled from John O'Groats to Land's End on a 400 dollar bike, fully laden, with no problems. Except for several tyre replacements, which is par for the course on a thousand mile bike ride. This summer, I'm going to go do it again, on a similar priced bike.

What Gravy said about bike fitting is really key to enjoying the ride. If it fits well, you can feel the benefit, as your effort is efficiently converted into motion. So I get bikes that have big sized frames and big size wheels (but small tire size) and a good gear ratio, and love it. Mountain bikes, on the other hand, are always too small and slow to really enjoy on a road trip. Stick a pair of mudguards on a road bike, and it's a bike that can get you anywhere.

Really expensive bikes? I just don't get the point.

 

[Fordama]

I'm surprised that nobody here has mentioned recumbent cycles. I bought one in '99 and have put a few thousand great miles on it.

http://www.recumbentcyclistnews.com/faq.html

http://www.hpv.on.ca/recumb.htm

http://www.ransbikes.com/SXPAL07.htm

 

[flimflam_machine]

Pirpirr, I think that if you're going to use a bike a lot, say for daily commuting or a long road trip then spend less than 300 GBP may be a bit of a false economy. Partly it's down to durability, which is not to say that cheap bikes will collapse but they might need more love, for instance wheels will be much better built on a pricier bike. Also, when things do finally wear out it can, bizarrely be more expensive to replace them on a cheaper bike e.g., cheap chainsets with the chainrings welded on mean that you can't just replace one worn chainring, similarly crappy plastic components (brake cantilevers on really cheap bikes) sometimes just don't stand up to be adjusted.

Having said all that I'd much rather ride a well-loved, moderately-priced bike with nice hard tires and a well oiled chain than something expensive but poorly set up, and I can't agree enough with the points about getting a bike that fits.

John O'Groats to Lands End eh? Hats off!

 

[Chris Haynes]

...A good seat. Learn where to adjust it, too. Higher than you think.
....

Very important! I have a gel seat cover on mine, and I am watching out that hubby doesn't borrow it for a while (now I know what to get him for Father's Day).

Also, Mosquito, why the limited price choices in bike shops? Are there only a few places selling bikes in your area?

I am within walking distance of three bike shops (disclaimer, I am also a block from a major bike trail). I checked the website of one major sports store, http://www.rei.com/cycling ... and saw they have a wide range of prices and types. The same goes for a larger bicycle only store, http://www.greggscycles.com/cartgenie/subcategory.asp?category=2 . Also there is a store specializing in used bikes, http://www.recycledcycles.com/ .

 

[Tanja]

Hm, this thread made me think about my recent bike purchase.

I recently bought a bike from my local bike shop for £150 (reduced from £300). I was not sure when I bought it whether I would actually enjoy cycling in London, and how much I would cycle. I am actually enjoying cycling so much that I started cycling to work each day, about 45 minutes each way. I hope my bike will prove to be durable - I have to admit I bought it because it was pretty, rather than based on how it was built, because I (maybe naively) assumed that for £150 it already needs to be built rather well - there are new bikes available for as little as £60 here.

 

[Pipirr]

Pirpirr, I think that if you're going to use a bike a lot, say for daily commuting or a long road trip then spend less than 300 GBP may be a bit of a false economy.

Sure, but then it's just a matter of finding a bike manufacturer that is reasonably priced and uses good components. When I lived in the UK, almost ten years ago now, Dawes and Raleigh fitted both requirements: low prices and reliable parts.

Now, the difference between a high end or a low end components bike may be the difference between a 100-400 GBP bike, but that's still much cheaper than one costing 1500 dollars or more.

I have to confess to a bias against buying expensive bikes, considering how all my bikes have ended their existences. One was totalled by a car, the rest got stolen... It would have sucked so much more if each one had cost the same as half of a small sized Korean car. But because they were reasonably priced and reliable, I was happy to use them every day and on long trips, not too upset if they got stolen or worried about not getting where I was going.

I see that some people here have set the price point for reliable parts / quality at higher dollar amounts than I have. I'd just add that there's a lot of choice out there, but I'd tend toward the lower range as being a fairer price. YMMV...

 

[flimflam_machine]

Sure, but then it's just a matter of finding a bike manufacturer that is reasonably priced and uses good components. When I lived in the UK, almost ten years ago now, Dawes and Raleigh fitted both requirements: low prices and reliable parts.

True enough, Dawes have made some legendary bikes. Not so sure about raleigh, I suspect some people won't buy one for the same reason that they wouldn't buy a Rover (snobbery).

I'm not one for expensive bikes, I too have lived in some bike-theft hotspots. But I do reckon it's worth spending a bit of cash. I occasionally ride to work on my old (about 15 years) inexpensive (< 300 GBP) mountain bike which I love. I am, however, jealous of my girlfriend's bike which is much newer, lighter and generally much faster for the same amount of effort.

The problem is that many bikes are a compromise, you can't get good components and a good frame and wheels without jacking up the price. If you have to choose I'd go for a good frame and tatty components, which you can then replace. I find it a bit depressing how many people in cities buy absolutely rubbish, unnecessary full suspension mountain bikes which are heavy, will wear out and are about as efficient as a pogo stick (Tanja, apologies if you've bought a full-suspension bike.)

 

[Mosquito]

Also, Mosquito, why the limited price choices in bike shops? Are there only a few places selling bikes in your area?

Well, there are several shops around that sell bikes, however some $900 is the cheapest road racing bikes I have found here. I suspect the gearing arrangements are partially responsable (they ALL have the flip the break-handles type of gearing, I think that one cost close to $400 alone).

I am not looking for a mountain bike (already have one that I'll use this season) but for a racing-style bike. And these start out around $900 and easily reaches $3000 before they start to get really expensive ($5000 and UP).

At £60 I could get a 3-wheeler for toddlers. Maybe. This is not a low-cost area. Which is a bummer. It may be that cheaper bikes are available if I forego the fancy gearing (which I kinda like the idea of, so I'd feel bad about loosing it) and look in other cities.

And since the sensation of a good racing bike is important to me, I will not settle for a hybrid or similar (even though I could probably get one much cheaper than the racing bike).


Mosquito - The good frame, replace low-quality parts when they break/wear out - type of thinking seems to be a good way to go.

 

[Modified]

What He said! Think about it, the cheaper the bike, the heavier it will be, the less efficient the bearings etc. All this leads to more exercise!

Or equivalent exercise at a lower and safer speed.

 

[Modified]

Pirpirr, I think that if you're going to use a bike a lot, say for daily commuting or a long road trip then spend less than 300 GBP may be a bit of a false economy. Partly it's down to durability, which is not to say that cheap bikes will collapse but they might need more love, for instance wheels will be much better built on a pricier bike.

As far as reliability goes, expensive light weight road bikes are generally much more fragile than cheap road bikes. I've had several cheap (like $100 US in today's dollars) bikes that I rode and abused for years, riding in summer and winter, and never had any parts wear out, other than brake pads.

 

[toddjh]

My bicycle cost $110 at a local Benny's home-supply store.

I push on the pedals, and it goes. I squeeze the brake levers, and it stops. I turn the little handles, and the gears shift, making it go slower (with easier pedaling) up hills and faster down hills.

It's much faster than walking, and it's great exercise.

I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.

That's my approach, too. I get the cheapest bike I can find that looks like it has decent brakes, get a padded seat cover for it, and just start riding. I cycle for exercise and to get to work, so more efficient doesn't necessarily mean better. If I were training for speed or in a race or something, then sure, I might shell out for a more expensive bike.

Another factor for me is that I live in a college town, and work on campus. It's pretty common for drunk frat boys to go around bending the tires and gears of bikes locked up at bike racks, and it's also not unheard of for thieves to break the locks (with liquid nitrogen, I hear) and steal them. A $3000 bike would be a very bad idea around here.

 

[Molinaro]

That, is obligatory. A bike without such a pedal/shoe system is only half a bike. I paid good money to get that on my mountainbike. Besides a road bike without such a system isn't, is it?

Booooooo!

I prefer the old school pedals. I like them big, and flat with metal spikes that if you do slip your foot off will spin around and slam your shins but good. Now that teaches you to keep your feet steady.

I worked 6 years as a bike courier on one like that. I could never go with the clips or even with the straps. When spending 10 hours a day riding, being able to shift your foot forward or back on the pedal to work the muscles a little differently is a must, for me.

I used a mountain bike frame with a road crank (51 teeth up front) and micro drive cassette in the back.

Non-standard all the way!



Oh, and about pricing. I generaly agree with what has been said so far. 2k is far too much to spend. Although, just last week I was at a friends house and he showed me the new wheels (rim, spokes, and hub only) that he just got for $1800 a pair!

 

[roger]

I used to have a race bike before it (wait for it) went lost. Riding it wasn't much fun. Harsh on the bumps, you'd be doing 50mph downhill if you are trying to get a cardio workout, twitchy as all get out, dangerous to ride at the speeds required to get the workout, etc. Great for a road closed to all traffic except bikes during a race, or on a deserted road, a pain in the butt (literally and figurally) otherwise.

Of course, you've had a decently high end bike before, so you know what that is like.

P.S. for a point of reference, I just bought a late model, low milage motorcycle for the prices being tossed around in this thread.

 

[EHocking]

...I used to be able to do around 20+mph for maybe 3+ hours, that is a loooong time ago. With some serious exersice I might be able to regain that in a few years. ...

You'd be surprised. It took me less than 6 weeks to get to that rate - and that after not riding the bike for over 5 years, and never riding the bike as an exercise regime, merely for transport.

After 12 weeks I was able to keep up with the £3000 cycles (especially in a snake) for hours at a time at 20+mph on the ride to Paris.

Another buzz was that my gear range was so narrow, that on the hills I had to really crank it hard to keep rolling forward, whereas all the cyclists with flash bikes with lower low gears had a much easier time of it. The buzz was, that because my gearing was much higher, by the time *I* got to the top of a hill, I was way ahead of the pack.

Everyone thought I was a hill climb specialist!

Whearas in reality, all I was doing was just enough to keep the damned thing upright and going forward.

 

[Davo]

With a more expensive bike the components are very lightweight and slightly better quality.

Becasue of the components reduction in weight they are usually more prone to wear and tear and breakage (even more so with mountain biking).

Even the more professional riders that I know usually train with a budget bike and use their expensive bikes for race days.

A few years ago I rode my well used steel framed bike on a 10,000km trip without any problems.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Nobody needs a really expensive bike. I raced on a $1600 bike for 4 years, and now, 3 years after I stopped, it's still better than most of the bikes I've tried. Maybe I've just gotten to like the feeling.

But you really get what you pay for. A more expensive frame will usually be lighter and stronger. The material can also play a pretty big role - some people like the flexibility of steel, and some prefer really rigid carbon fiber bikes. I suggest you try a few.

Depending on where you live, you might want to look into a cyclocross bike. These basically have road frames, but with wide tires. Bumpy roads are no fun with skinny tires.

Someone mentioned Cannondale bikes. These are good if you're willing to spend a lot, but they're basically the Macs of the bike world - Cannondale makes a lot of its own components, and sometimes you have to go to a Cannondale dealer to get a proper repair. At least that's the way it was a few years ago, when I still kept track of these things.

 

[bruto]

I would not go too cheap, though I agree that for recreational purposes one probably doesn't need the latest and greatest and most exotic. On the other hand, some of the small differences in quality and performance that you may not notice at first can become more and more noticeable after a couple of thousand miles. Good bearings, shifters that work well (and these days that means also integrated brake/shift levers that don't wear out and fall apart in a year or two), a good saddle, etc. If you keep the bike for a few years, you may find yourself wishing you'd thrown just a few more bucks into it, and one, and the object here is to have something that you like, that makes you want to ride. If you're on a budget, and like quality more than flash and newfangled technology, you might be happier with a really good quality older bike than a cheaper new one, and a cheap new bike may be poor economy if either you end up hanging it up unused, or if you have to upgrade or rebuild too many components.

I also don't think the "heavier means more exercise" argument is very compelling if you're actually planning to ride and keep riding. While it's true in some degree, don't take it too far and let yourself be talked into getting a really cheap department store bike instead of a decent frame.

I would strongly advise going to a good shop and having an expert help you get the right fit. If you have a good fit, you'll ride longer, faster, better. I don't know where the original poster here is located, but here in the USA I've seen a couple of different systems used. One, called "Fit Kit," uses various measuring devices and formulae to determine frame size, saddle height, etc. Serotta also makes a special adjustable frame for the purpose, called a "fit cycle," which I've seen at many places. Long ago I was "fit kitted," and I think it helped a great deal.

Finally, take some of the opinions, if not all here, with a grain of salt, depending on what kind of terrain you are planning to ride in. It's all very well to say you could ride a used Huffy from one end of Florida to the other, or from one end of England to another, perhaps, but if you live in New Hampshire or Vermont, you need something that you can crank up long hills, control on narrow, bad roads while dodging semi trailers, and whose brakes will still be braking at the bottom of Breakneck Hill.

I'm a retro cyclist myself, still riding an 87 Cannondale that I bought back in 1988 from a Category II cyclist who got a new one from the manufacturer every year. At the time it was more exotic and better equipped than I really deserved, but the quality of the components has paid off over many thousands of miles. I also perversely like the bone-breaking, tooth-loosening harsh ride that made early Cannondales notorious.