Summary
This is a general guide to buying an inexpensive bike. It is aimed at those who don't ride very often, maybe 10-20 miles a couple of weekends a month. The advice can also be used by those who might take the bike into town for a coffee, the newspaper, and maybe a few days' worth of groceries. It is not meant for mountain bikers, even weekend warriors like myself. It's not meant for those planning to enter the Tour de France or even the Tour of California. It's not meant for randonneurs hoping to make their first brevet. It is for the occasional, recreational rider who is looking to spend not much more than $500/€400/£300.
This blog is going to go into great detail about some things. For those who want the answer right away -- even though there is no such thing -- here is my general recommendation.
A low-cost mountain bike with:
- aluminium hardtail (ie, no suspension) frame with eyelets for adding fenders/mud guards, book racks, etc.
- rigid or suspension fork
- normal rim brakes
- 24 to 27 speed
- Shimano Deore drivetrain, although Acera/Altus/Alivio are sufficient
In Continental Europe, you can also get a trekking bike, also known as a city bike, a touring bike, or a cross bike. They all have 28-inch wheels, as opposed to the 26-inch wheels of mountain bikes. Having not lived in North America for over a decade, I don't know the prevalence of these kinds of bikes.
The general reasons I have made this suggestion is that you can upgrade this setup. If you decide you really want to do serious mountain biking, you can use this recommended bike and upgrade it to a more robust ride capable of taking bigger hits. If you decide you want to do a few road races, you can work with this setup to get a fairly light roadie, although it's not ideal. This setup should also last you quite a long time.
For my friends considering a bike, see if you can get the makes/models of the frame, fork, crank and rims. This will give me a good idea about the bike as a whole, even if I haven't heard of the bike/frame manufacturer. If you're a friend of mine, you know how to reach me.
For those who are curious, I have a 28-inch trekking frame, with high end mountain bike parts. I have a wheelset with thin, slick tyres and road cassette, although most of my rides take me over the hills and through the Vienna Woods to Great Grandmother's house.
Now for the details.
Advice
Don't just take my word for it. Ask around.
There is lots of information on the web, though it can be tough to sort through. There are some articles on Harris Cyclery's website (the "Articles by Sheldon Brown" in the top center of the page) that are a useful reference. The problem, of course, with the web is that it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Advocacy groups
See if there are any advocacy groups in your region. Usually, these groups are more than happy to offer advice; they can also organise rides and might even have local maps (don't hold your breath). Of course, you'll probably get more cycle advocacy groups if the local politics tend to be left-of-centre ("green"): for example, there are several bike advocacy groups in San Francisco; there aren't as many in Orange County, CA.
LBS (Local Bike Shop)
On top of that, try to find a decent bike shop, not just for repairs, but also for advice. Finding a good bike shop is more of a gut feeling. If there are lots of really fancy-looking racing bikes and/or mountain bikes, with lots of flashy bits, be careful. If the guy comes out in grease, and there are sensible looking bikes hanging around, the trust level is higher. If the place sells second-hand bikes, that's also a good sign.
In LA, the LBS that I really liked was called Dad's Bike Barn. The guy had a long hair and beard and a beer gut (think stereotypical Harley rider) and was clearly a bit older. He always offered the best advice and really knew bikes inside and out. I was there two years ago looking for something, and the same atmosphere is there, although I didn't see "Dad". Places like that are true gems, excellent service, cheap prices, and generally guys who know what they're doing. There was another shop that sells really good stuff and might offer advice, but few of the people on the floor were over 30, and they were the type to only suggest popular brand names and labels.
Here in Vienna, the shop that's just around the corner from me is useless. It's run by a couple of old guys and it would seem like it's a good place to go. Every single time I go in there to ask for something, they look at me like I've sprouted a second head. I thought it was the language, but then I go to either a mom-and-pop shop a bit further away or even a higher end shop. In both cases, they are incredibly helpful and know what I mean,
Be careful if the bike shop advertises the word "performance" anywhere. It might be a good shop, but you might not be the target market (then again, you might be training to replace Lance Armstrong in next year's Tour de France).
Megastores like Sportmart are good if you know exactly what you're looking for. You'll get it at a cheaper price, probably, than the mom-and-pop shops, but you have to know what "it" is, or not care too much about the specifics. Consumables, for example, are great to get at Sportsmart (tires, tubes, maybe even chains, flourescent bits) or even K-mart/Target. In these cases you'll probably get stuck with a salesman who cycles as opposed to a cyclist who sells.
FoaF
You can ask other friends and their friends, too. Just make sure they understand what it is you're looking for. I used to share an office with a guy who raced. People (including me) used to ask him advice on bikes, and he would say "the minimum you need is LX", which would end up being around €1000. I would then say he's telling them a pack of lies, you can get cheap transportation and the local Home Depot for €200. It has come to the point that he refers people to me. Just because I ride a fancy, €1500 bike doesn't mean that's what I recommend.
Frame
Before buying a bike, there are some questions to ponder before making frame selections: Will you be doing mostly town riding, such as fetching the groceries, getting a coffee, a quick 5 mile run around the block? Or, are you planning on longer distances, mostly on road, 10 miles or more at a time? Do you plan to do any off-roading at all? Not necessarily mountain biking but shortcuts and fire trails and things like that.
The most important thing to consider about a frame -- and the bike in general -- is its fit. There are hundreds of formulae out there, some of which require rather obscene measurements. For the most part, those formulae can be ignored. Just find something that fits and is comfortable. There are three main points of contact between the body and the bike: the feet; the hands; the delicate bits. Make sure your weight is comfortably distributed among these three points. If you are "in between" sizes on a frame, go for the smaller frame; it's easier to make a small frame larger with longer stems and seat posts than it is to make a large frame smaller with a hacksaw. It's up to you to decide if you want to be bent forward nearly horizontal, or if you want to be fully upright, or if you want a posture in between.
Materials
In the summary, I suggested a hardtail aluminium frame. This is simply because a cheap aluminium frame will handle better than a cheap steal frame. And these are going to be the only two materials available in this price range. Titanium, scandium, carbon fibre, and magnesium are not going to happen for under $1000 for the frame alone.
It is true that you can get an excellent steel frame for a reasonable price. The good folks at Surly bikes make great, inexpensive steel bikes. But, I've seen several cheap bikes that have oversized tubes made of steel. One one occasion, the steel frame with oversized tubes made the whole bike (plus shipping box) weigh in at 22.8 kg (I watched the scales closely, since the airline allowed only a maximum of 23kg). Oversized tubes were developed to compensate for weaknesses in aluminium. For steel, the tubes of the main triangle shouldn't be more than an inch (25mm) to an inch and a quarter (32mm) in diameter, or right around the same diameter as the seat post tube. If you're wondering what I mean by "main triangle", look at bikes: 90% of the frames are diamond shaped, two triangles stuck together at the seat post tube. The main triangle is the one in front, to which the fork, seat post, and crankset are attached. If you're looking at used bikes, you might see more steel frames. Many road bikes still use steel. If you see "Reynolds" anywhere on a steel frame, then you're looking at engineering excellence. I don't want to scare you away from steel. I have nothing against steel frames; steel certainly has its advantages. Weight is not one of them, especially in cheaper constructions.
These days, aluminium is cheap. It's not quite as strong as steel, which is why the downtube in the main triangle is usually two inches in diameter or thereabouts, oversized and usually oval. It's also something like three times lighter than steel for the same volume (depending on grade of steel and grade of aluminium, etc.). If you have to haul the bike up and down stairs to the cellar or to get it onto a roof rack on the car, you'll appreciate the lighter aluminium. Or if you get a flat and have to push. Or if you find a hill that's longer than you expected. Or... you get the idea. Aluminium is practical.
If you have to get somebody to take a blowtorch to your frame, it doesn't matter if the frame is steel or aluminium. The frame has been kissed by death. It's only a matter of time.
Geometry
MTB
I recommend a mountain bike for the versatility. It's easier to kit out a mountain bike for marathon across-the-world's-roads kind of riding than it is to kit out a road racing bike for off-roading. Then again, I've taken what is essentially a road bike (though not a racing bike) and made it into an off-roader. Mountain bikes tend to have a more upright sitting posture. This is uncomfortable for long-term (75-100 miles) riding, but for going to town it's fine. Plus, it's great for off-roading. These often come with front suspension, and sometimes rear suspension.
Racing
There is also road or "racing" bikes. When I was a kid, these were called "10 speeds". Nowadays, they're up to 30 speeds. In Britain, or at least the parts I'm familiar with, they're called "racers". These will have thinner tyres (1-1.25 inches) and usually a "tighter" gearing. That is, for every revolution of the pedals your legs make, the wheels will turn more and you'll go further than you would on a mountain bike. They're still using this design in the Tour de France (which is on as I'm writing this). These are obviously great for the road and for distance. If you don't plan on doing any off-roading, this would be a good choice. These often have no suspension whatsoever.
Hybrid
Then there's the in-between bikes. These come in various names: city, trekking, touring, cross, hybrid. There are subtle differences in all of these names, though, to be honest, a lot of the subtlety is lost on me. They usually have 28-inch (700c) wheels, though some are 26-inch. The tyres are usually a little wider (1.5-1.75 inches). Some will have fenders/mud guards and book racks. They usually have mountain bike components, and mountain bike type of brakes (V-brakes instead of calipers). Many come with front suspension, but not nearly as many as the mountain bikes. Some, though not very many, come with rear suspension, too. You can take them off road, though I would avoid single track. But sometimes the bike path just isn't paved.
I don't know the availability of these kinds of bikes in North America. In Vienna, if you go to the big sport shop, mountain bikes take up about 45% of visible stock, and these in-between trekking bikes take up about 45% of the visible stock. The other 10% is road bikes. These bikes are incredibly common throughout continental Europe. There are plenty of bike routes and paths in Austria, Germany, Benelux (and probably France, but I don't know) and more than enough weekend riders to fill them. This would be the type of frame I would recommend for the occasional rider. They have the bigger wheels for slightly faster like the racers, but they have the slightly wider tyres, more upright sitting position, and more robust components like mountain bikes. If these are common where you are, look into them. Otherwise, try to look for a mountain bike.
Suspension:
Front:
Almost all new bikes now have suspension forks. This is a good thing. It absorbs some of the energy from the front brake to save you from flying over the handlebars. It also provides more comfort. These are great advantages.
It's possible that your bikes won't have front suspension, though. I've given up on suspension, myself, for several reasons. One reason is maintenance. With a rigid fork, I don't have to worry about lubricating the coils and having a service check every 1000 miles. A rigid fork also tends to be a lot lighter.
Rear
Rear suspension, at $500 is not worth it. For that price, if you have rear suspension, that means you'll probably have a cow of a frame. It also means the bike will weigh a ton. Weight isn't as much an issue when you're not a racer, but it is something to consider. If someone is trying to sell you a cheap full suspension bike, lift it up. If you feel your kidneys come out your back, then the bike probably isn't worth it. If it's really light, check with the local police to make sure it isn't stolen.
As alternatives to rear suspension, you might get suspension seatposts, or if you want to really look "retro", suspension leather saddles. I can't offer an opinion on suspension seat posts because I've never tried them, although I've only heard good things from a range of riders.
Another alternative to suspension is to keep the tyres at a lower inflation. For fat (2-inch/52cm) mountain bike tyres, 35-40 psi (er, 2 bar, I think) gives you cushioning and should still keep you from getting pinch flats. The drawback to suspension -- either tyre pressure or springs on the bike -- is reduced handling. When I put the slicks on my bike and inflate them to nearly 100 psi (7 bar), the handling is phenomenal. The handling decreases with the fat mountain bike tyres (or suspension fork), but I can ride through rock gardens with a little more confidence.
Brakes
Disk
Disk brakes are now on bikes as well as cars. They have a lot more stopping power. They work better in wet weather. You can even get them with hydraulic lines, although unlikely in this price range. They also don't heat up as much and have knock-on effects (ie, warping the rim) when they are applied constantly for a long period (for example, dropping down 6000 feet from Vale to Denver). There's also higher maintenance to consider with disk brakes. I also think they're still working out some of the bugs. I don't have disk brakes, though it is something I'm considering in the long term. For the most part, you probably won't need them.
Rim
Rim brakes are tried and true. They come in various actuations, though.
Road racing bikes and some (older) touring bikes will have caliper brakes, like an inverted U (but they're not U-brakes). These have a single pivot on the frame. Because the brake arms overlap each other, the tend to work well only with thinner tyres. There are also caliper brake that have a pivot for each brake arm. I've only seen them occasionally, and they are on older bikes. I think these might be the U-brakes I mentioned earlier.
Mountain bikes and a lot of the other hybrid bikes have rim brakes with two non-overlapping arms. Rather than a single pivot point where both arms attach to the frame, each brake arm attaches individually to the frame, on either side of the wheel. Modern bikes use V-brakes. There is one cable that goes from the lever all the way to one brake arm, with the second brake arm hooking on. These are very powerful for cable-actuated rim brakes. Another type of brake are cantilevers (or cantis). These attach in the same place as V-brakes. But the cable from the lever is split over a bridge and attaches to each brake arm individually. I find these to be less powerful than V-brakes, but that could be that I was witnessing cheapness in motion. Cantis were the first attempt at getting the brake arms wider in order to accommodate wider tyres.
Brake Booster
Despite the name, the main purpose of a brake booster is to save your frame and fork. Because V-brakes are so powerful, they can cause the rear triangle to flex. If you look closely, after the brake makes contact with the rim, and you keep squeezing on the brake lever, that effort has to go somewhere. The energy is transmitted to the frame or fork, or more specifically, to the bosses holding the brakes to the frame. Brake boosters absorb a lot of the excess energy. Some people swear they feel their brakes are stronger with them. I don't feel the difference, although I do have brake boosters to save my frame. These probably won't be included in a new bike, but are something that should be considered as an additional purhcase. They seems to be getting more and more difficult to find. Few (online) shops seem to be carrying them, and in much less variety than was around a few years ago.
Brake modulator
A brake modulator is kind of like anti-lock brakes for the bike. They can be built into the brakes themselves (Tektro SU series), or, like Shimano, in the noodle that hooks up the brake arms on V-brakes. When I had modulation (on a bike that was stolen), I thought it was the greatest thing. It was impossible to lock up the wheels, no matter how tightly I squeezed the brake lever. The excess energy is absorbed in springs. This saves tyres, of course, and rims in the long run. On one occasion, it saved my life. I was going too fast down a hill, and a car turned right, right in front of me as I was entering the intersection. Because my front wheel was unable to lock up, I was able to turn right, as well, and avoid hitting the car or, worse yet, flying over my handlebars. As with anti-lock brakes on cars, more experienced drivers/riders are actually safer without the anti-lock brakes, being able to apply brakes with the right pressure at the right moment. On the other hand, the reason it's called a panic stop is because you weren't expecting to stop. If you get brake modulation, it's probably only needed for the front wheel. If you don't feel comfortable because you haven't ridden in twenty years, you might consider this. Otherwise, take it or leave it.
Components
First of all, by components, I mean mostly front and rear derailleurs, crankset (the part between the pedals and the frame), brakes, shifters, brake levers, maybe hubs. Chances are, any new bike will be equipped with Shimano components. When people make police reports about stolen bikes, they usually say "it had Shimano parts". That's a bit like saying "my computer has Microsoft software" (actually, mine doesn't), or "I drive a GM". There is a whole range of Shimano parts, from cheap and likely to fall apart if used more than once a month, to race quality.
So, here are Shimano's group sets, on a scale from cheapest to most expensive.
- Mountain bike range: Tourney, Altus/Acera/Alivio (I can't remember which is which), Deore, (Deore) LX, (Deore) XT, XTR
- Road bike range (I'm less certain of this): Sora, Tiagra, 105, Ultegra, Dura-Ace
- Their comfort range uses the name Nexave with numbers afterwards. The higher the number, the higher the quality. To be honest, though, I seldom see any Nexave parts, even on premium comfort bikes.
It is entirely possible that your bike has Sram components. One place where this is most likely is in Grip Shift. There are arguments on both sides of the "grip shift" vs. "trigger shift" debate. I've used both, I like both. Anyway, Sram's scale is quite simple. Sram 3.0 is the most basic, followed by 5.0, 7.0, 9.0, and X.0, at least for the mountain bike range.
I'm most familiar with Shimano's mountain bike parts (although I have only one Shimano part on my bike), and these are the one's you're most likely to encounter, so I'll describe them. If none of these names appear any where on the bike (especially the rear derailleur), then you are in the really inexpensive range. The reason I mention the rear derailleur is because there should always be a group name on there. The group name for anything less than Deore might not show up in the crank or the brake arms.
I don't really like the Tourney range. It seems to have improved a little over the years, but it's too cheap for my liking. I also find it harder to maintain than the more expensive options, and that's vital. What you spend on a higher level group you might save on frustration from something as simple as tightening a cable.
Having had to maintain an Altus/Acera/Alivio bike, as well, I find few problems with those. Being cheaper, though, also means there's disadvantages. Altus/Acera/Alivio have a seven or eight speed cassette (21 or 24 speed bike). Cassettes do need to be replaced every so often, and I have difficulties finding seven speed cassettes, and I don't like the range of eight speed cassettes. Additionally, the front derailleur is less capable, which means there's less range in the front crank and chain rings (the disks on the crank that make direct contact with the chain). So, the largest chain ring is limited to 42 teeth, which, in turn, means that for every rotation your legs make, the wheels don't go as far as with a 44-tooth chain ring.
I recommend Shimano Deore for this price range. It should be do-able. It's still relatively inexpensive. Some riders hate it simply because it's the least expensive (in their mind), thinking that it couldn't be very good. I find, however, that it is a fairly robust group set that is easy to maintain. The name does indicate a certain level of quality, despite what the label-concious may think. Additionally, when parts need to be replaced (and they will be: metal-on-metal contact will wear things out), it's easier to replace, or if you're insane like me, to upgrade. Upgrade is more difficult with the lower range of groups.
I don't know if my observations hold true if you replace "Deore" with "Tiagra" or "5.0". But it's a good rule of thumb. My gut feeling trusts the Sram 3.0 series more than the Altus/Acera/Alivio series. But, that very well could be anti-Shimano bias, too.
If the bike you're looking at doesn't include any of these names, it's either very, very cheap, or very, very expensive.
If you consider getting a second-hand bike instead of a new bike, you can also consider getting a higher level of component group for your price range. So, a ten-year-old bike with XT components will still be serviceable for many years to come.
Concluding remarks
You'll need to do some basic service after the first few hundred miles, just like a car. Tighten cables, lube the chain, etc. Checking tires regularly and keep your chain fairly cleaned and lube is a great way to get a long life out of your bike. Everything else you can take the the LBS.
Some things you should consider in addition to the bike:
- a decent helmet. These are often overpriced. Something from Target might be sufficient. If it's a brand-new helmet, they should all have sufficient safety ratings. The price is derived from the labels/names and from the "ventilation": generally, a higher priced model will have more holes and therefore more airflow and will also be lighter. Then again, you might not want a helmet. I always wear a helmet because a watermelon droped from about six feet high is a messy site to behold. But, some people feel it constricts their freedom, they're too warm and irritating around the chin, etc.
- Gloves. The first thing you instinctively do when you fall is stick out your hands. Also, the gloves will absorb some of the road vibration and prevent blisters and callouses.
- A decent lock. Kryptonite and Master Lock offer warantees. I'm not sure about On-Guard, though they offer good locks. In a case of zeal, I bought a chain and lock that weigh nearly 15 pounds. I use it when I'm forced to leave the bike out overnight of if I'm in any city in the UK. Otherwise, I use a standard D-bar. Master Lock's hand cuffs look cool.
- Visibility. Using a great British phrase, my wife and I look like plonkers when we ride, at least our commuting trip. We wear flourescent vests (which are incredibly cheap now because cars must carry them in case of road accidents), leg bands, and wrist bands. Some of the leg/wrist bands have flashy lights in them. One advocate (I think in LA) suggested a bright pink wig. This may seem a bit strange, but it causes drivers to notice you and therefore slow down. It's easy for cars to only see bikes as background scenery. You have a better chance of safety in the foreground. Now, you don't necessarily need to dress up like us plonkers, but plenty of reflectors, reflective tape, and lights on the bikes. Small reflective bands around the ankles are discreet enough.
- Paranoia. It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you. I usually ride with the assumption that car drivers are aiming for me. When they do, at least I'm expecting it. When they don't, I have a more pleasant ride. In a car, it's really easy to get lost in your own world, where anything that goes wrong must obviously be the other person's (cyclist's) fault. This has been the case since the motor car first rolled out (there's a 1940's Disney cartoon about this). It's even worse with radios and cell phones in cars. On a bike, you're much more aware of your surroundings. So, watch out.
Happy cycling.
No comments:
Post a Comment