Cycling gear at Aldi from 1st of May

everogere

Well said markos1963 !!

huwy

I have bought some lidl and tchibo stuff in the past most recently the lidl HR bike computer which so far has been very good for £13. Conversely I also like my assos shorts and bling bling bits - you do get what you pay that is a fact of life but seeing as though I fall off a lot (on the MTB) the cheap stuff comes in very handy.

The Most important factor is to just get out and ride - Enjoy the sun I'm sure it's coming !

CrookedCucumber

I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, `you get what you pay for' applies a lot of the time.

But, but, but...

I know how marketing works. A lot of businesses put a lot of money into making their products seem to be more than they are. The textbook example is Perrier water. In all important respects, water is water. However, the Perrier company created a loyal following for their product by clever promotion and artful packaging.

Now, Oakley sunglasses certainly look the business, and I won't say that wouldn't feature in my buying decision. I'm as vain as the next man. But there are EC standards that sunglasses sold in the UK have to meet, and so far as I know both Oakley and Aldi (and everybody else's) sunglasses are tested to exactly the same standards for UV filtration, etc.

Consequently, there is no evidence whatsoever that expensive sunglasses will be any better for your eyes than Aldi ones. There just isn't. And if the vendors of expensive products are claiming that they do, that makes as much sense as Perrier claiming that their water is better for you than what you get out of a tap. It's just snake oil bottled in marketing hype.

I've always tried to buy the best I can afford, whatever it is. But as the price rises there comes a point where you see smaller increases in value, and greater increases in brand-related costs. I don't want to pay the costs of branding in the products I buy.

Cycling Weekly gave a rave review to the DHB cycling sunglasses, which cost about a fifth the price of anything from Oakley. Consequently, I think if you're paying more than about 20 quid for sunglasses, you are paying the costs of branding. That's not for me.

Nevertheless, I can't help wondering about the long-term durability of Aldi sunglasses. Mind you, at 2.99 it isn't much of a worry.

curlyrobert

looks to me like somebody from Aldi has posted a thread here, lets face it buying from Tesco, Asda, Aldi is not the most ethical movement, we pay less for the unfortunate circumstances of some poor family in the far east. If it costs £4.99 for a cycle computer, then you think about import costs, costs of development, production, it means that somewhere down the line there has been some squeezing to enable the store to get their 75% margin or whatever it is. I think if we are all honest we can find a suitable middle ground. If you can afford a pair of glasses for £3 and a gilet for £6 then we can probably find one slightly better made for about £10 more and have a cleaner conscience and not really notice the extra costs.

However it could just be me and my dislike for there large organisations, support your lbs, or butcher, or dairy farmer anything rather than the corporate machine...

CrookedCucumber

curlyrobert wrote:

looks to me like somebody from Aldi has posted a thread here, lets face it buying from Tesco, Asda, Aldi is not the most ethical movement, we pay less for the unfortunate circumstances of some poor family in the far east. If it costs £4.99 for a cycle computer, then you think about import costs, costs of development, production, it means that somewhere down the line there has been some squeezing to enable the store to get their 75% margin or whatever it is. I think if we are all honest we can find a suitable middle ground. If you can afford a pair of glasses for £3 and a gilet for £6 then we can probably find one slightly better made for about £10 more and have a cleaner conscience and not really notice the extra costs.

However it could just be me and my dislike for there large organisations, support your lbs, or butcher, or dairy farmer anything rather than the corporate machine...

I agree with all this. But the problem is that I not at all sure that this kind of exploitation is not involved in the production of expensive branded products.

Is there, for example, any cycle computer that is not substantially made in a Far Eastern sweatshop? I rather suspect not.

If you want to take the ethical line -- and we all probably should -- there's a hell of a lot of stuff we just wouldn't buy at all.

curlyrobert

True CC, and as I was writing this I felt the same, I am not sure any mass produced product is not exploiting somewhere down the line, just like to think that for the organisation to get any competitive ROI at 4.99 they need to be really pushing hard on reduced costs which ultimately is on the production line staff. I justify it as if I spent 4.99 at Aldi, I could get a similar spec deal at my lbs for say 12.99, then my lbs would be earning a living and the margin is less tight so perhaps the conditions on the production line might be a little happier and they could perhaps one day afford a bike of their own to put one of these computers on and cycle to work rather than be forced to sleep on the floor of the warehouse! anyways, at a local level I would rather a little extra of my cash to line the lbs pocket with gold rather than the corporate supermarket machine.

but we all have a different take on ethics and it is just my opinion.

Swannie

The closer to you, the bigger the % gets.

The difference in price paid by Oakley and Aldi to get the item made will be trivially small. Don't let that affect your decision too much.

Aldi et al don't stock the same stuff all year around. Maintaining a production/warehouse/supply chain is expensive. They don't. They get one batch made of each type of stuff, keep it in the warehouse for maybe 2 months whilst they collect similar stuff together, and ship it. Lifetime on the shop floor is minimal. That's how they work. Their costs are cheap, they deal with few middle "men". They will probably just buy a design from an independant.

Contrast to the larger manufacturers, who contract their factories, have ordering, warehouses, design teams. They need to manage stock levels, dealer agreements. They ship to distributor warehouses in different countries, who then ship to stores. The stores they have to carry their own stock, etc. The money tied up in that supply chain, and the number of people involved massively increases the cost.

Pile high and sell a massive volume, or pile low and sell a small volume. Both valid... but at the end of the day, similar products.

curlyrobert

but the lbs still get nothing when people buy from Aldi, it is the keep local business angle that I care most about, they look after us when we have a problem and they give great advice when called upon, I am not so sure on how much advice 'Shelly' on checkout 3 can give on cycle gear, and if we don't buy our accessories from the lbs they will suffer and 'Shelly will be all we have left. it is unrealistic to always think of production warehouses and margins etc you are right and perhaps that was the wrong route to go down, but lets not loose the invaluable knowledge and assistance from our lbs just for a cheap load of gear from Aldi!

perhaps this is for a different post!
'

CrookedCucumber

curlyrobert wrote:

I justify it as if I spent 4.99 at Aldi, I could get a similar spec deal at my lbs for say 12.99, then my lbs would be earning a living and the margin is less tight so perhaps the conditions on the production line might be a little happier ...

The issue whether we should support local shops is different from the issue whether we should be supporting sweatshop production.

If you spend 12.99 at your local shop to get the same thing (or essentially the same thing) as you get for 4.99 at Aldi, then you're supporting the local shop to the amount of 7 quid, but exactly the same exploitation is going on upstream in the supply chain.

While buying from a specialist shop might result in less exploitation of suppliers, there's no guarantee that I can see that it will do so.

curlyrobert

CC, again you are right, i will slip off my high horse and stick to one issue!

unfortunately exploitation will happen and I would like to not be part of it but I, and will continue to be so as I am a brand junkie and do not have the determination to become self sufficient!

moved onto a more focussed discussion of looking after our lbs as it is a local solution for our ethical behaviour!

bratters

I have two points to make:

1. Over many years all the Aldi gear I have bought has been of good quality and of excellent value. Sizing can be iffy but then try buying cycling shoes in the same size from different manufacturers.

2. I have visited manufacturers abroad where millions of virtually identical garments are produced for numerous clothing companies. The differences in the garments are a/ cosmetic, not quality and b/ the names on the labels. Aldi with their worldwide distribution can buy exactly the same quality for exactly the same price as anyone else, be it clothing, shoes, electricals et al. The difference is in their low selling price - reflecting different marketing strategies, overheads and mark ups.
Ask yourself, why on earth would anyone want to commission cheap low quality products from the far east when top quality is available for the same rock bottom prices? It's a no-brainer.

(I have no conection with Aldi - just a satisfied customer)

CrookedCucumber

bratters wrote:

The differences in the garments are a/ cosmetic, not quality and b/ the names on the labels.

That's pretty much the point I was trying make, although you made in more articulately than I did.

If you can pay more, it's worth finding out whether you're paying for better quality or better branding. I believe that with a lot of cycling-related products, the extra you pay goes on better branding. I'm sure that isn't always the case, but I reckon it often is.

gkerr4

CrookedCucumber wrote:

bratters wrote:

The differences in the garments are a/ cosmetic, not quality and b/ the names on the labels.

That's pretty much the point I was trying make, although you made in more articulately than I did.

If you can pay more, it's worth finding out whether you're paying for better quality or better branding. I believe that with a lot of cycling-related products, the extra you pay goes on better branding. I'm sure that isn't always the case, but I reckon it often is.

there's not a huge amount wrong with paying for branding mind..

if you want a brand with which you associate you pay at that level - nothing wrong there.

a good example - the VAG group,

I wouldn't bee seen dead in a Skoda,
i wouldn't buy a SEAT
i could live with a volkswagen (the wife has one)
i'll have an Audi


they are all the same car at the end of the day - but the brands are very different.

I'l be going for some of the socks which are excellent - but I don't like the rest of the stuff.

HungryCol

I heard that Aldi and Lidl take a hit on the cost they offer on these specials to get you in the door. Notice how they put their specials towards the back or middle of the store? AND they get everyone in the door at some stage during the year: diving, golf, cycling, DIY, car, plumbing, motorbike, gardening and that's just in the last two months! It's marketing genuis.

CrookedCucumber

gkerr4 wrote:

there's not a huge amount wrong with paying for branding mind..

if you want a brand with which you associate you pay at that level - nothing wrong there.

a good example - the VAG group,

I didn't say there was anything wrong with paying for branding; merely that you won't find me doing it

I don't have much money to spare after the usual family outgoings, and it has to pay for the best quality I can afford. There simply isn't enough money leftover for me to justify funding the marketeers.

redddraggon

I'm about to cycle home in my perfectly good Aldi jacket :P

cpt_spalding

CrookedCucumber wrote:

I didn't say there was anything wrong with paying for branding; merely that you won't find me doing it

I don't have much money to spare after the usual family outgoings, and it has to pay for the best quality I can afford. There simply isn't enough money leftover for me to justify funding the marketeers.

My sentiments exactly.

Not long joined these forums & find it difficult to fathom the elitism with regard to some of this.

Makes me think of some of the Sunday cyclists I see on the roads. I'm sure there are some serious racers on here & good on them, they prob need a lot of the top end kit to compete. But the Sunday cyclists....

They're the guys spending hundreds & thousands on kit kidding themselves on shaving a few grammes here & there when they're carrying a substantial belly around with them.

For most of us we need a bike, a few clothes &, er, that's it. It's not an expensive pastime (at least it doesn't have to be).

The Oakleys of the world must just love you guys...

curlyrobert

Not long joined these forums & find it difficult to fathom the elitism with regard to some of this

can we buy our cheap kit, or expensive from the lbs though rather than a supermarket? that is not elitism, just supporting the local cycling community rather than the multinationals?

cpt_spalding

curlyrobert wrote:

can we buy our cheap kit, or expensive from the lbs though rather than a supermarket? that is not elitism, just supporting the local cycling community rather than the multinationals?

Buying from the lbs is not elitism (I think you're being disingenuous).

Buying expensive kit for the sake of it and glorying in that is elitism.

curlyrobert

disingenuous, that's a little harsh!

hey listen, all I am saying is buy whatever, if you can afford Assos buy it, if you can only afford 'cheap' gear or want something for short training/commuting rides buy that, or if you want Assos but can't afford it then save up. but whatever you decide, buy it from lbs rather than a multinational supermarket such as Aldi!

we all want to feel good about ourselves and at a weekend club run it might be nice to roll up in flash kit if you can afford it, just like putting on a nice pair of Diesel jeans for a night out. It is not elitism, just part of trying to look your best and be comfortable. (I have now started talking about something else again rather than the don't buy from supermarket and I can tell it is going to take emphasis away from that fact...) I will stop now.

This post is exhausting!

CrookedCucumber

curlyrobert wrote:

disingenuous, that's a little harsh!
but whatever you decide, buy it from lbs rather than a multinational supermarket such as Aldi!

You can be sure that I'd buy stuff at my local shops (not just cycling stuff) if they have it, and it's reasonably priced. I despise supermarkets and all they stand for. I particularly detest the way that they're usually built to encourage more bloody cars on the road. As if we need more bloody cars.

But... (there had to be a `but', didn't there?)

On my budget, it's difficult to justify spending a lot of money in local shops when I can get similar stuff in Tesco much cheaper. I just don't have money to spare.

Now, arguably the reason I don't have money to spare is because I am financially over-extended, and the reason I am financially over-extended is because I have (as we all have) become used to supermarket prices for the bulk of our day-to-day needs. It could certainly be argued that if we all had to buy locally-produced stuff, all the time, we'd all have a much better idea of the realistic, sustainable value of money. Are we propping up our economy at the expense of the developing world? I think we probably are. Are we all guilty of contributing to this? Yes, I think we all are, in different ways.

For all that, I still have to balance the budget, and it's not always easy.

we all want to feel good about ourselves and at a weekend club run it might be nice to roll up in flash kit if you can afford it, just like putting on a nice pair of Diesel jeans for a night out. It is not elitism, just part of trying to look your best and be comfortable.

I guess I've reached the age where unnecessary expenditure does not help to make me feel good about myself. In fact, thinking you can change your self-image by buying more expensive stuff is a mug's game, isn't it? I doubt it works for anybody in the long term.

Now, being able to keep pace with flash buggers 20 years younger than me without spending a fortune on fancy kit -- that makes me feel good. Oh boy, does it

hodsgod

I posted something similar in the other Aldi thread. I lived and worked in India from 99-04. I can tell you know that I saw Adidas, Nike, Marks and Spencer, Gap and tesco all having things manufactured in the same factory. There is a lot of twaddle being written about sweat shope etc by people that don't know what they are talking about. If you dont want to buy things from developing countries you better give up shopping.

A lot of the time we pay for brand image in the west, and it isn't justified. If you want further proof, this website has some reviews of last years products. They aren't fancy but they are cheap and usually effective.

fto-si

gkerr4 wrote:

CrookedCucumber wrote:

bratters wrote:

The differences in the garments are a/ cosmetic, not quality and b/ the names on the labels.

That's pretty much the point I was trying make, although you made in more articulately than I did.

If you can pay more, it's worth finding out whether you're paying for better quality or better branding. I believe that with a lot of cycling-related products, the extra you pay goes on better branding. I'm sure that isn't always the case, but I reckon it often is.

there's not a huge amount wrong with paying for branding mind..

if you want a brand with which you associate you pay at that level - nothing wrong there.

a good example - the VAG group,

I wouldn't bee seen dead in a Skoda,
i wouldn't buy a SEAT
i could live with a volkswagen (the wife has one)
i'll have an Audi


they are all the same car at the end of the day - but the brands are very different.

I'l be going for some of the socks which are excellent - but I don't like the rest of the stuff.

They are all made by the VAG and some share components but far from being the same car , an Audi RS4 is hardly the same as a Skoda Fabia Sport is it?

gkerr4

no - but the octavia, leon, golf & A3 are all the same - different finishing materials granted, but same chassis, engine range etc...

so are the superb, passat and A4 (not sure about the Seat Leon in there too)

lilactime

main problem is the aldi council estate image , if you bought a pair of sunglasses from marks and spencers for £5 you wouldnt think they were poor quality ? in other words snobbery

markos1963

What I want to know is how much faster will I go wearing Oakley's

fto-si

willhub wrote:

stuff paying for the name I'm not going to pay for that stuff from those names when I know for a bloody fact 3 quid sunglasses do the job just fine....

Do your £3 sunglasses carry the British Standard BS EN 1836:1997, which ensures that the sunglasses offer a safe level of UV protection?

CrookedCucumber

fto-si wrote:

willhub wrote:

stuff paying for the name I'm not going to pay for that stuff from those names when I know for a bloody fact 3 quid sunglasses do the job just fine....

Do your £3 sunglasses carry the British Standard BS EN 1836:1997, which ensures that the sunglasses offer a safe level of UV protection?

Yes. That's the point I was making earlier.

Anonymous

fto-si wrote:

willhub wrote:

stuff paying for the name I'm not going to pay for that stuff from those names when I know for a bloody fact 3 quid sunglasses do the job just fine....

Do your £3 sunglasses carry the British Standard BS EN 1836:1997, which ensures that the sunglasses offer a safe level of UV protection?

Not the ones I have proberbly not they were from portugal when I was on holiday, but you can get sunglasses for those prices that do have safe level of UV Protection, I know most people like to spend 50+ quid on a pair of sunglasses, but even if I was rich I would not.

lilactime

always thought oakleys were bought of the bloke in the pub for a tenner ?