Entry level nonsense

Laurent7

Is it just me that is sick and tired of this ludicrous term "entry level". I think it's a piece of mindless marketing jibberish - possibly from the states that has no place in cycling. I've seen £500 racing bikes described as "entry level" and it just makes me want to vomit. People just want a tool to do a job that adequately meets their needs and don't need pattronising. Another thing doing my head in is bikes being described as "retro" when they are only 20 years old. I want people using these silly terms arrested and made to do tough back breaking work in the community.

bryanm

That's a bit of an entry level post ?

gavintc

But, entry level is exactly what they are. Do you also get steamed up when you read hybrid or commuter. I think you have a low 'grumpy old man' threshold.

Random Vince

can i describe my road bike as retro?

she's about fourty years old

nwallace

Entry level for what?

You could call the cheapest bike possible entry level but that would be like saying a standard Ford Fiesta 1.3 is entry level for the BTCC.

Hotblack Desiato

What's wrong with describing a £500 'racing bike' as entry level?

If you want to try competitive road riding and you're on a budget do you re-mortgage the house and buy a piece of Italian carbon exotica?

No, you buy an 'entry level' bike.

A bike from a reputable manufacturer which is described as 'entry level' will generally guarantee you a bike which is spec'd and built to a high enough standard to cope with the demands of low level competition or intensive recreational use.

The same cannot be said of the £99 'racing bike' advertised in the back of a Sunday newspaper.

.

Ratkilla

The same cannot be said of the £99 'racing bike' advertised in the back of a Sunday newspaper.

Says who?! What if you can only afford £99 and you have the desire to race?
Granted it might be a pile of sh*t but ...

This sport has always been populated by the 'all the gear no idea' lot.
I have a Colnago therefore I must be a better rider than you, poor person.
I like Colnagos as I like Ferraris (no not that one) but I don't actually want one.

Like the twat that laughed at my 501 tubed Peugeot all those years ago.
Can't remember what he was riding but it was obviously 'superior'. Like him.
Anyway, we got on to the track and I horsed the git. Crossing the line with a shout of
'Who's laughing now fatboy?!' Those were the days .

So, who decides what 'entry level' actually is and puts a price on it? It seems to me that this is the point where the w*nkery starts and hell mend you if you happen to be poor.

Cunobelin

What is the relevance of being "poor"?

I never see threads about "bring down the price of quality cars because "the poor" can't afford them?

Entry level is simply a guide, and is useful to those who are researching a cycle or type of cycle.

Read the whole review and you will find out why this statement has been made - often accompanied by advice as to where the compromises have been made.

It will always be subjective, butthena gain so is describing the BMW X5 as a "family car"

Big Red S

So what should we be calling bikes that are designed to be good as an entry to the sport?

Hotblack Desiato

Ratkilla wrote:

The same cannot be said of the £99 'racing bike' advertised in the back of a Sunday newspaper.

Says who?! What if you can only afford £99 and you have the desire to race?
Granted it might be a pile of sh*t but ....

But what?

So you would be happy to recommend a a 'pile of sh*t' to somebody who wants to race? A bike that's build quality and components will be lucky to see it through one race never mind a full season of training and racing?

If you want to enter the world of competitive cycling, whether that be an officially sanctioned race, club riding or setting a PB on your own private TT, you need a bike that is fit for the purpose. The 'Entry Level' tag is an indication from the manufacturer / reviewer that this bike has the necessary build quality and components required for low level competition or intensive recreation.

From the manufacturer, it may be a bit of marketing. From the reviewer, it's an informed opinion and piece of advice. Nobody is forcing you to follow this advice. If you know better, you are free to ignore it all and buy any bike you wish.

When I'm looking to buy a new piece of technology that I may be unfamiliar with, I find the marketing blurb in conjunction with an independent review a very useful guide when deciding what to buy. If I see something marked as 'Entry Level', that gets a good independent review and is within my budget, it gets added to the short list.

As CUNOBELIN mentioned above, what is the relevance of being 'poor'? Since you brought a person's financial status into the discussion, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide us with your definition of 'poor'


.

Ratkilla

Of course it's relevant!
Being 'poor' is relative. Based on whether or not you have £500 disposable income.
If you don't have £500 to spend on a bike you are therefore too 'poor' to afford it.
Simple really.
And, agreed, it is subjective.
I just think that setting the 'benchmark' at £500, psychologically, can disuade people from investing in a machine.
If 'entry level' was pitched at £300 it may persuade more people to part with their cash.
Just an idea.

top_bhoy

Its hard to recommend a bike at say 99 quid because it will have no features worth considering to be of any benefit. It will have cheap and inferior components and its frame will be heavy and unwieldy. These two areas will invarianbly put people off cycling on a regular basis.

At maybe say 400 quid, a bike becomes 'entry level' and is good enough to offer something to provide enough encouragement to continue cycling and make it enjoyable without breaking the bank. If all someone can afford is 99 quid, they'd be better off looking for an 'entry level' 2nd hand bike because the new 99 quid bike isn't worth a cent - within a month or so I guarantee it will be left sitting in the garage or shed gathering dust forever more in 99.999% of cases.

Cycling is as cheap or as expensive as you want to make it. As a beginner, without spending huge amounts, you could get started with a reasonable 2nd hand bike, a cheap pair of shoes (and the optional cheap helmet) for maybe 350 quid which isn't exactly a huge amount given many people spend huge amounts on cigarettes and alcohol in a month - even the 'poor'.

Hotblack Desiato

Ratkilla wrote:

I just think that setting the 'benchmark' at £500, psychologically, can disuade people from investing in a machine.
If 'entry level' was pitched at £300 it may persuade more people to part with their cash.
Just an idea.

It's not a matter of some bloke behind a desk picking a price an random and declaring that entry level bikes will start at £xxx.

The price is dictated by the combined cost of the cheapest components considered reliable enough to perform consistently at the required level.

If a bike could be built with a frameset, groupset, wheels and finishing kit of sufficient quality to consistently perform at a competitive level, and be sold for a profit at £300, then £300 could be considered a reasonable price for an entry level bike.

I'm not by any means saying a £300 bike is a pile of shite and should be dismissed. If you want a bike for noodling around on a Sunday afternoon with the family, the sub £300 bike could be perfect for you. But if you want an 'entry level' route into more serious cycling, then I think £500 is a realistic enough starting point.


.

Ste_S

Having to spend £500 for 'serious' cycling is complete tosh. Decathlon make a very nice range of bikes starting from around £100 if you want a new bike, and better yet there's a lot of second hand bargains out there.

Hotblack Desiato

Ste_S wrote:

Having to spend £500 for 'serious' cycling is complete tosh. Decathlon make a very nice range of bikes starting from around £100 if you want a new bike, and better yet there's a lot of second hand bargains out there.

So you'd be happy to recommend this for a season's racing?

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/sport-1-17603629/#


.

Ste_S

If that's all they could afford, why not ?

They'd probably get something better second hand though mind.

Hotblack Desiato

You're right about getting something better second hand.

I think the point is that the 'entry level' tag should really be attached to the build quality and components rather than the price.

If you are new to the game and on a tight budget, you would be better looking at the spec of new entry level bikes and trying to buy a similar spec'd bike second hand rather than buy a lower spec'd new bike.

.

Cunobelin

This is becoming a socialist "Chicken and Egg"

Hotblack's point is essentially correct - It is not the price that determines entry level it is the bike, it's frame and components.

Let's take "entry level" racing bikes.

These are bikes that one could sensibly race on at Club level for a few seasons. For this you have a list of requirements and this will determine the price. Other bikes of a similar level will feature the same types of frames, but one will raise the quality of the wheels and drop a groupset from Tiagra to Sora to make the overall cost the same.

Entry level describes a reasonable standard to allow the beginner to participate in that discipline.

You don't need to buy a £599 racing cyce t cycle, but you do need to make this level of investment to compete.

Hence an "entry level" town bike is a fraction of the price of an entry level racing bike.

Anonymous

Cunobelin wrote:

This is becoming a socialist "Chicken and Egg"

Hotblack's point is essentially correct - It is not the price that determines entry level it is the bike, it's frame and components.

Let's take "entry level" racing bikes.

These are bikes that one could sensibly race on at Club level for a few seasons. For this you have a list of requirements and this will determine the price. Other bikes of a similar level will feature the same types of frames, but one will raise the quality of the wheels and drop a groupset from Tiagra to Sora to make the overall cost the same.

Entry level describes a reasonable standard to allow the beginner to participate in that discipline.

You don't need to buy a £599 racing cyce t cycle, but you do need to make this level of investment to compete.

Hence an "entry level" town bike is a fraction of the price of an entry level racing bike.[/quote]

Entry level town bike!!!!!!!
Were can I get one of them?

Ste_S

Cunobelin wrote:

This is becoming a socialist "Chicken and Egg"

Hotblack's point is essentially correct - It is not the price that determines entry level it is the bike, it's frame and components.

Let's take "entry level" racing bikes.

These are bikes that one could sensibly race on at Club level for a few seasons. For this you have a list of requirements and this will determine the price. Other bikes of a similar level will feature the same types of frames, but one will raise the quality of the wheels and drop a groupset from Tiagra to Sora to make the overall cost the same.

Entry level describes a reasonable standard to allow the beginner to participate in that discipline.

You don't need to buy a £599 racing cyce t cycle, but you do need to make this level of investment to compete.

Hence an "entry level" town bike is a fraction of the price of an entry level racing bike.

No you don't. I've seen plenty of kids on sub £599 bikes blow the doors off people on >£1000 bikes.

What's an "entry level" town bike ?

Cunobelin

So imagine just what those kids would be capable of with a £599 entry level racing bike!

The higher quality bike is going to cost more, sad but true. The better quality up to a point, then the better the cyclist can perform, and with far greater consistency.

If anyone really feels able to compete on a sub £200 "Tour de France" badged special, then please feel free to do so....

chrisjsmith

It's the same with every industry - it's a marketing ploy to get you to "accept" a product as a worthy entry into something.

There are plenty of entry-level non-cycling that kick the shit out of their higher priced cousins...

Ste_S

Cunobelin wrote:

So imagine just what those kids would be capable of with a £599 entry level racing bike!

The higher quality bike is going to cost more, sad but true. The better quality up to a point, then the better the cyclist can perform, and with far greater consistency.

If anyone really feels able to compete on a sub £200 "Tour de France" badged special, then please feel free to do so....

I think you're over estimating how much of a factor the perceived quality of the bicycle plays in the riders performance. In order of importance :-

1. The ability of the rider, training, natural ability etc
2. Position on the bike
3. Quality of the bike

Some of the better lads in my club have turned up to freewheel track training sessions on cross bikes (with knobblies) and still ridden faster than most of the other people there.

Cunobelin

Ste_S wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

So imagine just what those kids would be capable of with a £599 entry level racing bike!

The higher quality bike is going to cost more, sad but true. The better quality up to a point, then the better the cyclist can perform, and with far greater consistency.

If anyone really feels able to compete on a sub £200 "Tour de France" badged special, then please feel free to do so....

I think you're over estimating how much of a factor the perceived quality of the bicycle plays in the riders performance. In order of importance :-

1. The ability of the rider, training, natural ability etc
2. Position on the bike
3. Quality of the bike

Some of the better lads in my club have turned up to freewheel track training sessions on cross bikes (with knobblies) and still ridden faster than most of the other people there.

Which is exactly the point about quality.

With the same rider on a properly set up bike an "entry level" racing bike will increase performance and reliability over a "sub £200" racing bike.

Ste_S

I agree that a rider will go faster on a nicer bike, although how much faster is open to debate.

However i still maintain that you don't need to spend £599 to start racing. An entry level bike is the best bike a rider can afford for their first bike.

Jon G

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

But if you want an 'entry level' route into more serious cycling, then I think £500 is a realistic enough starting point..

For serious competetive cycing. A good commuting machine can be had for about £300.

Jon

Cunobelin

Its not about "nicer" its about inefficiency, reliability and all the other improvements that you gain at this level.

However i still maintain that you don't need to spend £599 to start racing. An entry level bike is the best bike a rider can afford for their first bike.

Wherein lies a difference of definition, The "entry level" in the OP is the level at which it is considered by experienced cyclists to be adequate.

The "average" cyclist sees the £80 catalogue bike as expensive and hence "entry level" by this definition.

Personally I think that it is a useful estimate of what you should be looking for in terms of equipment, fittings and mechanics. It is certainly a guide I have used in the past, and will in the future.

penugent

It's not about the bike

spen666

Jon G wrote:

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

But if you want an 'entry level' route into more serious cycling, then I think £500 is a realistic enough starting point..

For serious competetive cycing. A good commuting machine can be had for about £300.

Jon

Ahh right- I never realised cycling to work was a competitive event
No wonder those grannies on the shoppers keep eyeing me up at the lights

Shadowduck

I must admit I cringe every time I come across the term "entry-level", here or anywhere else. I always think it has a sort of derisory ring to it - "I wouldn't use it myself but I suppose it's ok for you".

top_bhoy

'Entry level' - I don't think its derisory to use that expression and I have yet to find examples on this site of people using it for derogatory purposes towards others. If there are, please point it out. To my understanding it is simply a basic starting point to use as a guide for cost and quality purposes of a basic bike which is required to be reasonably competitive for racing and is to be reliable for more than a few months. The rider then has a choice of options depending on what the bike is required to do.