Mountain bikes - why are some so expensive?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Have you considered the cycle to work scheme?

Anselm

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Have you considered the cycle to work scheme?

I've heard of it but don't know then ins and outs, neither do I know if my work (a department store) do the scheme, but thank you for taking the time to answers my Q's. Do you know of any cycle forums?

JQ.

Is this thread for real?

I can buy a car for £500 and I can buy a car for £500,000 - they will both get me from A to B, the difference will be in how they get me there.

My personal opinion is that the difference between a £250 bike and a £750 bike is huge, but the difference between a £750 bike and £1,500 bike is much smaller. However, the person who buys a £1,500 bike will appreciate those small differences, assuming they are actually a keen cyclist and not just rich.

vikingaero

In the bike world £150 will now buy you a perfectly decent bike for pottering around in. The Bike Forums Police will say that as soon as you put one tyre off road then the bike will fall apart and you will die a horrible death.

But whilst £150 gets you an OK bike, you would be better off invest an extra £100 or £200 for a little bit more.

I have an aluminium Gary Fisher that I bought about 14 years ago for £1,500. At first in hindsight spending £1,500 was a stupid mistake and not very MSE. But I've ridden thousands of miles on it, crashed on it loads of times and abused it. All I've replaced is the brake pads and tyres. The bike is still 100% and I can't find anything to replace it with because it is so light and responsive compared to the lardy stuff on the market.

rxbren

you get what you pay for cheap bikes are just that
and there is a big difference between £750 and £1500 bikes
£150 will buy a decent commuting bike just stay away from front and full suspension bikes that way you will get slightly better gearing and spec.
id recommend buying a seconhand mid-top range bike from a few years ago as the post above says they can take the abuse as they were r&d'd to cope with the stresses

Anselm

rxbren wrote: »

you get what you pay for cheap bikes are just that
and there is a big difference between £750 and £1500 bikes
£150 will buy a decent commuting bike just stay away from front and full suspension bikes that way you will get slightly better gearing and spec.
id recommend buying a seconhand mid-top range bike from a few years ago as the post above says they can take the abuse as they were r&d'd to cope with the stresses

Can you tell me what bikes without suspension are called, are they "hard tails"? And what are considered goods makes, Kona, Santa Cruz, Scott?

olly300

vikingaero wrote: »

I have an aluminium Gary Fisher that I bought about 14 years ago for £1,500. At first in hindsight spending £1,500 was a stupid mistake and not very MSE. But I've ridden thousands of miles on it, crashed on it loads of times and abused it. All I've replaced is the brake pads and tyres. The bike is still 100% and I can't find anything to replace it with because it is so light and responsive compared to the lardy stuff on the market.

According to the inflation calculator to get a bike similar today you need to spend £2,145.00

Oh and as the exchange rates are worse today you probably can add another £200-300 on to that.

thelawnet

Anselm wrote: »

Can you tell me what bikes without suspension are called, are they "hard tails"? And what are considered goods makes, Kona, Santa Cruz, Scott?

no a hard tail has a hard tail but a squidgy front

hard tail means front suspension. otherwise you've got full suspension

A bike without suspension is otherwise known as the only bike most people should buy unless they are dedicated mountain bikers (as in actually doing mountain biking, as opposed just cycling along the odd towpath). They can be called 'rigid'.

Best commuting bike for £300 around at the moment is this

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/triban-3-id_8167038.html

It's not remotely a mountain bike of course, the French are too smart to be taken in my mountain bike marketing - this goes on roads, and way, way faster than a crappy hybrid/mountain bike would do.

Unless you are actually cycling along proper hardcore trails, forget about mountain bikes. Although the above is not really suited to off-road at all, that's not a bad thing really - keeps it nice and light.

Anselm

^ that looks quality, how would it compare to a Viking Vittoria 2008 road racer?,

And I'm not being funny, riding on the road is scary haha pavements and back streets all the way :P

photome

thelawnet wrote: »

no a hard tail has a hard tail but a squidgy front

hard tail means front suspension. otherwise you've got full suspension

A bike without suspension is otherwise known as the only bike most people should buy unless they are dedicated mountain bikers (as in actually doing mountain biking, as opposed just cycling along the odd towpath). They can be called 'rigid'.

Best commuting bike for £300 around at the moment is this

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/triban-3-id_8167038.html

It's not remotely a mountain bike of course, the French are too smart to be taken in my mountain bike marketing - this goes on roads, and way, way faster than a crappy hybrid/mountain bike would do.

Unless you are actually cycling along proper hardcore trails, forget about mountain bikes. Although the above is not really suited to off-road at all, that's not a bad thing really - keeps it nice and light.

I wasnt going to get in to the debate of which bike to buy but as you hace suggested going to Decathlon then I think this is also a good buy, I know you may not agree as it is a hybrid and it weighs an extra 3kg

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/riverside-3-mens-id_8202746.html

a £50 saving though

A good second hand bike is def worth looking at though