Autofaq now on faster server

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:11:01 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

I just made the point that of the bikes I've got the cheap bike seems
very comfortable even with its greater weight. I don't see it as
vastly inferior to my Kona, Gt or Giant. Its the bike that gets most
used and abused.

And you are sufficiently motivated (or chippy) to argue the toss about
it here for weeks, but not to spend the few minutes necessary to
update the FAQ with your foolproof method for finding the uncut
diamond among the rocks in the bike section at the supermarket.

Maybe you have no foolproof method? I certainly don't. Which is why
I always advise people to get a better quality bike from a bike shop,
because that way you are less likely to end up with a pile of useless
junk fit only for the tip.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:28:06 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Martin Wilson wrote:

Yes but which actual models? Normally if some item is unsafe it has a
brand and model.

But that isn't all there is to it. Often a cheap bike is unsafe because
it's put together by someone Without A Clue and sold on to someone who
doesn't know any better (case in point, a pal on a Halfwits Apollo MTB
where the handlebars came off after a couple of days). I could make my
/very/ expensive Streetmachine GT unsafe with some applied cluelessness,
but that wouldn't make the brand and model inherently unsafe.

I assume its some sort of welding or material problem
with them.

No, usually assembly, combined with components that don't encourage it
to go together well. Bad welds happen but are unusual. OTOH, /any/
bolt or screw can come undone if it isn't done up properly to start with.

Pete.

What your basically saying apart from the 'components that don't
encourage it to go together well' is if you are half sensible at
checking over a bike and making adjustments then a cheap bike may be
ok. I can't think of any components on my cheap ebay bike that don't
go together well.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:52:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:11:01 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

I just made the point that of the bikes I've got the cheap bike seems
very comfortable even with its greater weight. I don't see it as
vastly inferior to my Kona, Gt or Giant. Its the bike that gets most
used and abused.

And you are sufficiently motivated (or chippy) to argue the toss about
it here for weeks, but not to spend the few minutes necessary to
update the FAQ with your foolproof method for finding the uncut
diamond among the rocks in the bike section at the supermarket.


Surely you realise that you are also motivated and chippy enough to
also argue your point in a similar fashion so I can only conclude that
you are so egotistical and arrogent that you apply different rules to
other people than yourself. Also it has to be said I am one of the few
persons in this forum actively using such a bike and speaking from
experience. Not only that but I have no bias. I have both good brand
bikes and so a so called cheap brand bike. I am also not motivated by
any connections to the bicycle trade especially bicycle dealers. The
number of postings arguing against cheap bikes in this forum certainly
is greater than those for it so again the greater motivation/toss is
on the other side.


Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't
have to join it to make that point. The idea that somehow I have found
the 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100 of good cheap bikes is very unlikely
and what about the 99 or 999 other buyers who have had problems/faults
where are these people?



Maybe you have no foolproof method? I certainly don't. Which is why
I always advise people to get a better quality bike from a bike shop,
because that way you are less likely to end up with a pile of useless
junk fit only for the tip.


Thats the advice you give but its statistically easy to proof that few
people are taking it as cheap bikes sell in huge numbers and if
anything are taking more and more sales. Despite these numbers there
doesn't seem to be a glut of people complaining about them. Maybe they
pick up their £90 Raleigh bike from Halfords and simply drop if off at
the tip on their way home and never mention it again.



Guy

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:19:08 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:39:50 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

silverfox knarly

I did a quick Google on that. Sterling house sell it (always a bad
sign) at £225, much less than the price you stated. A full-sus bike
for £225? I'd expect it to be pretty poor. A decent rear shock costs
twice that, I know because I can't afford to upgrade my cheap Ballista
to a decent airshock.


The price I stated was the price it was sold at on that site.
Sterlinghouse are often cheaper for bikes as they are such good value
;-)






http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.p...d=m1b47s2p3632

You can get a full-sus bike from my LBS for that sort of cash:
http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s1p3127 but I don't
really fancy it.

Most of the cheap bikes seem to have (Tourney) TX50 rear mechs. These
are *not* the same as the old "Shimano SIS" crap seen on early low-end
indexed bikes. We have bikes with both sorts; the Tourney style have
in my experience two main faults: one, they have plastic adjuster
barrels, which tend to strip, and two, the cages bend rather easily.
Apart from that they are functional.


As far as I'm concerned all the tourney gearing is functional. There
are about four models I think from the TY18(TX18) to TX70 and all
feature on very cheap bikes.


Actually I have SIS, Tourney, Acera, Deore, Deore LX and Deore XT. Of
these the only one which is actually crap is the SIS. Oh, and I had
some trouble with the Deore but that was 9-speed job and on the
recumbent with very long cable runs. After I'd replaced it I found
that the real problem was simply that the hanger was too thick - I
ground 1/16" off it and it's fine now, so I think even base spec Deore
probably works OK.


Surprise, surprise the rear mech I upgraded to from the tourney was a
standard deore as mentioned by me many months ago and in a thread you
responded to. Why did I upgrade to a deore because when I looked
around it was the first model that generally had no critiscism
anywhere. What happened when I upgraded? As expected the bike shifts a
bit quicker and more precisely. No real benefit on the flats or
downhill but going up hills it helped enormously. Now I'm quicker
going up hills I probably could get away with the tourney but at the
time it was annoying.

My experience with Tourney is that if they (and the chain) are kept
well lubricated they work as well as anything else, but they are
intolerant of abuse, especially mechanical abuse. On the plus side,
the cages are made of cheese so straightening them out is a job for
fingers not the vice.


I don't see how they can work as well as anything else. You can see
the pivots and spring are not of the same quality. Maybe extra
lubrication can compensate for the pivots but the spring is pretty
weedy.

The most dependable bike in our house is my wife's 2001 Dawes
Saratoga, Tourney rear mech, Cr-Mo frame. I put Alesa XPlorer rims
and a Deore XT rear-end on because the trailer bike was taking its
toll. Cassette rear end - there's a must for the heavier rider.
Avoid screw-on blocks! That's the same price now in aluminium with
front sus as it was then in Cr-Mo with a rigid fork. Incredible,
really.


So the most dependable bike is fitted with a tourney rear mech. So
really then the cheap bikes are ok for gearing as many of them feature
the new style tourney gears and don't all have the old steel
plating/rivited type derailleur.

With regards screw on blocks they actually have excellent load bearing
chararcteristics when they come with solid axles. I understand the
wider spacing of the bearings as a great feature on cassettes and in
itself this is very positive for loads but they normally as far as I
know feature quick release mechanisms which really have to be top end
quality to put up with heavier riders at least for the rear wheel.


Guy

Martin Wilson wrote:
[snip]
Not only that but I have no bias. I have both good brand
bikes and so a so called cheap brand bike. I am also not motivated by
any connections to the bicycle trade especially bicycle dealers. The
number of postings arguing against cheap bikes in this forum certainly
is greater than those for it so again the greater motivation/toss is
on the other side.

That is bollox. To imagine you have no bias because you own various
bikes ought to be a jest, but you give every appearance of being quite
serious. Do you really think that nobody who disagrees with you has
never either owned or ridden a cheap bike? Do you imagine that their
views on cheap bikes have no basis in experience? Do you also claim that
all that they have posted about their personal experience of cheap bikes
is lies? Your declaration of independence from the bike trade carries an
equably laughable implication that those who do not wholly agree with
you have some vested interest. There is no problem with you posting your
views, but you must expect a response from those with other views.
That's what goes on on usenet. If you find yourself outnumbered, well
that is how it is. If you cannot handle dissenting views you need to
find some other way to spend your time because you will only get grief
on usenet.

Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't
have to join it to make that point. The idea that somehow I have found
the 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100 of good cheap bikes is very unlikely
and what about the 99 or 999 other buyers who have had problems/faults
where are these people?

[snip]
To compare the FAQ to the BNP suggests you are seriously unhinged. You
definitely have no sense of proportion. Usenet is an open forum; anyone
can post here. The FAQ is available to anyone who takes the trouble to
contribute, a service provided entirely voluntarily by those who set it
up and added to it. If you don't like the FAQ, the answer is to either
have the dignity and good grace to ignore it or to change it, not to
post paranoid whines about it.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Martin Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:52:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:11:01 +0000, Martin Wilson
wrote in message
:

I just made the point that of the bikes I've got the cheap bike
seems
very comfortable even with its greater weight. I don't see it as
vastly inferior to my Kona, Gt or Giant. Its the bike that gets
most
used and abused.

And you are sufficiently motivated (or chippy) to argue the toss
about
it here for weeks, but not to spend the few minutes necessary to
update the FAQ with your foolproof method for finding the uncut
diamond among the rocks in the bike section at the supermarket.


Surely you realise that you are also motivated and chippy enough to
also argue your point in a similar fashion so I can only conclude
that
you are so egotistical and arrogent that you apply different rules to
other people than yourself.

Perhaps he thinks the FAQ is fine as it is.

Also it has to be said I am one of the few
persons in this forum actively using such a bike and speaking from
experience.

Actually, it has to be said that you are 9 parts clueless newbie and
almost everyone else here has far more experience than you. Not that
your views are unwelcome, but they would be better served without the
side order of chips on the shoulder.

Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't
have to join it to make that point.

The FAQ is not a party to join or not. It is a document you can change,
just as easily as posting here.

James

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

A full-sus bike
for £225? I'd expect it to be pretty poor. A decent rear shock costs
twice that, I know because I can't afford to upgrade my cheap Ballista
to a decent airshock.


Guy, I'd stop frequenting that expensive LBS of yours. £450 for a
decent air shock? You can get a 5th Element, which is as good as they
come, set up for you personally by the shock-meister, Tim Flooks, for
£255 and others for a lot less.

http://www.tftunedshox.com/specials.htm#5th

Tony

Martin Wilson wrote:

What your basically saying apart from the 'components that don't
encourage it to go together well' is if you are half sensible at
checking over a bike and making adjustments then a cheap bike may be
ok.

It certainly may be. But I don't think that 100% of the bike buying
public are necessarily "half sensible" (or technically capable, usually
by their own free admission) at checking over a bike, so my suggestion
is they spend some more money to have someone better put it together,
and you even get better bits as a side effect, which equates to a better
bike.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 25/3/05 1:39 am, in article ,
"Martin Wilson" wrote:


As far as I'm concerned all the tourney gearing is functional. There
are about four models I think from the TY18(TX18) to TX70 and all
feature on very cheap bikes.

Functional yes, durable no.

Actually I have SIS, Tourney, Acera, Deore, Deore LX and Deore XT. Of
these the only one which is actually crap is the SIS. Oh, and I had
some trouble with the Deore but that was 9-speed job and on the
recumbent with very long cable runs. After I'd replaced it I found
that the real problem was simply that the hanger was too thick - I
ground 1/16" off it and it's fine now, so I think even base spec Deore
probably works OK.


Surprise, surprise the rear mech I upgraded to from the tourney was a
standard deore as mentioned by me many months ago and in a thread you
responded to. Why did I upgrade to a deore because when I looked
around it was the first model that generally had no critiscism
anywhere. What happened when I upgraded? As expected the bike shifts a
bit quicker and more precisely. No real benefit on the flats or
downhill but going up hills it helped enormously. Now I'm quicker
going up hills I probably could get away with the tourney but at the
time it was annoying.

I would suggest that if you put the tourney mech back on then you would find
it annoying. When new almost all mechs are virtually the same in
performance. It is after three months on the road that you really start to
notice the difference. The XT mech on the commuter is still fine and happy.
It's predecessors (not cheap, but not as good) were fine to start with but
soon crapped out after prolonged use.

My experience with Tourney is that if they (and the chain) are kept
well lubricated they work as well as anything else, but they are
intolerant of abuse, especially mechanical abuse. On the plus side,
the cages are made of cheese so straightening them out is a job for
fingers not the vice.

I don't see how they can work as well as anything else. You can see
the pivots and spring are not of the same quality. Maybe extra
lubrication can compensate for the pivots but the spring is pretty
weedy.

It's also the materials. They corrode and the weaker springs don't cope with
worn/corroded pivots.

The most dependable bike in our house is my wife's 2001 Dawes
Saratoga, Tourney rear mech, Cr-Mo frame. I put Alesa XPlorer rims
and a Deore XT rear-end on because the trailer bike was taking its
toll. Cassette rear end - there's a must for the heavier rider.
Avoid screw-on blocks! That's the same price now in aluminium with
front sus as it was then in Cr-Mo with a rigid fork. Incredible,
really.


So the most dependable bike is fitted with a tourney rear mech. So
really then the cheap bikes are ok for gearing as many of them feature
the new style tourney gears and don't all have the old steel
plating/rivited type derailleur.

They are OK until the system sees some wear and gets used in adverse
conditions. Then quality pays back in spades.

With regards screw on blocks they actually have excellent load bearing
chararcteristics when they come with solid axles. I understand the
wider spacing of the bearings as a great feature on cassettes and in
itself this is very positive for loads but they normally as far as I
know feature quick release mechanisms which really have to be top end
quality to put up with heavier riders at least for the rear wheel.

Not at all. A cassette hub can have a solid axle. They are trivial to
change. And the difference in loading between a cassette hub and a screw on
more than compensates for any difference between a hollow and solid axle.

FWIW, I ride a cheap bike (or to be blunt, a bike built out of cheap bikes)
with salvaged components. The only parts that work well a

the integrated gear levers/brakes.
The V brakes on the front (deore). There are a pair of cheap pressed steel
ones on the back and they are lousy, but OK for a drag brake.
The new pedals
The new bottom brackets.

The rear mech is a tourney and it does not give me nice shifting, but maybe
that is due to a worn chain/block. The rear axle is bent so I have to change
that soon.

Why do I ride it? because it is a tandem and I take the kids around to their
various activities on it. If I am going somewhere else on my own, I'll swap
bikes back to the commuter. There is a world of difference between the two.

...d

in message , Martin Wilson
') wrote:

Also I don't like the faq and don't want to be involved with the faq
its pretty simple. If I don't like the British National Party I don't
have to join it to make that point.

As other people have said, the AutoFAQ is not a political party. It's a
mutable public document which is the sum of the views of the members of
this group who have contributed to it at any given point in time. There
isn't any way I could make it more open or neutral. Neither I nor
anyone else has special editorial privilege.

If you don't want to take part, no-one's forcing you to. But you cannot
accuse the AutoFAQ of having any agenda or position. It's a blank wall
for anyone to write on, and if you refuse to add your views then you
cannot rationally complain that they are unrepresented.

If you think you can produce something better, please do so.

As a reminder to everyone, the AutoFAQ is he
URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/urcautofaq/

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.