bike of the year

team47b

I'm a bit confused. How does the bike of the year 'contest' work. (not the cynical marketing bit, I understand that!)

If the bike has to be within a certain price bracket, and the reccomendations are to change the brakes, wheels, tyres etc doesn't that not put it outside the price bracket, therefore not able to be a contender.

If the critisism is that the tyres aren't the fastest available, why aren't they? Why would the company not just fit the fastest, surely the price wouldn't be affected that much.

Wouldn't you expect the 'best' tyres on a bike costing 2 grand?

Critisism of the geometry/set up is a valid comparison, Altegra over 105 is OK, perfect sportive bike etc.

I know pedals aren't part of the spec, due to personal taste, but are rims, hubs, tyres etc also not part of the set up.

It's a shame (bit naive I know) that the spec is 'adjusted' to fit a price bracket, making it difficult to see it as a 'bike of the year' more of a 'bike of a certain spec now but will be lower next year to fit the price point, of the year contest'

alihisgreat

Yeah you could name a £10,000 superbike with the perfect spec as the bike of the year.. but how does that affect most people?

i'm assuming the chosen price bracket is the most relevant for the Cycling+ and BR reader demographic.

Hopefully they will develop it further though, with C2W sub £1000 bike of the year, superbike of the year etc.

keef66

Unfortunately wheels and tyres seem to be where most manufacturers try to shave off a few quid. I agree it is stupid; you wouldn't want to buy a 2 grand bike and immediately have to replace the wheels in order to appreciate the frame, but that frequently appears to be the case.

I'm hoping they mark them down if they have rubbish tyres or dull, heavy wheelsets. IMO the Bike of the Year should be a good, balanced package out of the box.

DesB3rd

keef66 wrote:

I'm hoping they mark them down if they have rubbish tyres or dull, heavy wheelsets. IMO the Bike of the Year should be a good, balanced package out of the box.

While I'm inclined to agree with this I also have leaning towards giving thought to bikes that show potential. To expand:

Package A may be v. good "balance" of components (i.e. from a recognisably similar tier of the component hierarchy, and well matched) and good value for that collection of bits say, "a great bike for £750" - no qualification needed.

Package may repressent in inbalance, a truly outstanding £750 package in 9/10 respects, competative with bikes twice the price but for e.g. a ropey set of wheels.

A & B repressent value to different people; A is a good option for an e.g. commuter, or someone with no interest in upgrades, B for someone a more willing to mess with their bike & swallow the cost of a £250 set of wheels to get a £1.5k bike for only £1k.

CiB

Pretty sure I read (on here I think) that now we're all used to buying bikes without pedals, wheels is the next thing to be an optional extra, the after-market purchase, seeing as everyone has different views on what warrants a good wheel and how much of the bike's total value should go on the wheels. For some it's lots, for others it's not so lots.

jameses

keef66 wrote:

I'm hoping they mark them down if they have rubbish tyres or dull, heavy wheelsets. IMO the Bike of the Year should be a good, balanced package out of the box.

They do seem to be - all of the bike of the year reviews I've read here so far seem to get 3/5, almost always because the wheelset is heavy. Kind of odd that bikes good enough to be shortlisted have such average scores, though :?

keef66

Praps they are feeding us the duff ones in the hope we'll buy the mag to learn which wins??

giant_man

They're all below 2 grand aren't they? Enjoyed previous years but this year the list seems to be a boring selection imo

rolf_f

CiB wrote:

Pretty sure I read (on here I think) that now we're all used to buying bikes without pedals, wheels is the next thing to be an optional extra, the after-market purchase, seeing as everyone has different views on what warrants a good wheel and how much of the bike's total value should go on the wheels. For some it's lots, for others it's not so lots.

Don't forget, at the high end many companies only offer frames - my Look was such a bike; Look just didn't offer any builds at all.

Ultimately, there is no point including stuff that the owner is likely not to want. For a fairly expensive bike, pedals, tyres and saddles seem a pointless provision unless the purchaser is given the choice to spec what they want. My Ribble came afflicted with Pro Race Nitro tyres. I asked when I picked it up if I could have a discount if they took the tyres off and they refused. It turned out that the Nitros rode ok until they punctured which was when I realised they were impossible to take off and replace onto the rim - I put a hole in the sidewall of one trying.

So why waste £40 of the purchasers money putting half decent tyres on if the purchaser doesn't like that brand? Either stick some terrible cheap ones on, stick some expensive ones on to the buyers spec or no tyres at all.

Bozman

Maybe they should class it as frame of the year or.... Bike up to £1000...£2000..etc, then again Canyon and Focus are selling near on tour bikes for under 3 grand while Trek etc sell them for alot more.

xpc316e

Almost all bikes are a price/specification compromise and this compromise can be worked in different directions. I recently bought a Scott CR1 Comp because it has a great frame and only average groupset, wheels, etc. For the same money I could have chosen a bike with better wheels, groupset, finishing kit, etc., but an inferior frame. You pays your money and takes your choice.

As for poor quality tyres etc., being fitted to some bikes - if you are selling bikes by the thousand, then saving a couple of quid on a tyre means a lot more profit in the long run.

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

rolf_f

xpc316e wrote:

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

Who's talking about Rolls Royce kit levels. TBH, for £1200 I'd prefer not to pay for rigid tyres that are almost impossible to get off the rim when I could pay another £20 and have Schwalbe Ultremos or £20 less and have no tyres at all. Or the same price and have my own choice of good tyres for £10 a pop.

RoadMeridaBen

The only choice for bike of the year is my Cervelo P2, case closed!

neeb

Bozman wrote:

Maybe they should class it as frame of the year or....

I think this would be a great idea, these days I'm almost always looking at a frameset as a potential major purchase rather than a bike, I am quite happy building my own bikes and unless I spend a fortune, any ready-made bike is going to have worse components and wheels on it than my current one at any given point (and probably not the ones I would choose).

Is it just me, or has the market changed in the last 2 or 3 years such that in the mid to higher-end price brackets it is no longer more economical to buy a complete bike in any case? When I look at the specs of some of the higher-end bikes and their prices, it seems that you could often buy the frameset and components and build it up yourself for about the same or less money. That's not the case at the lower end certainly, but there seems to be a point where the prices of complete bikes start to become less good value.

rolf_f

neeb wrote:

When I look at the specs of some of the higher-end bikes and their prices, it seems that you could often buy the frameset and components and build it up yourself for about the same or less money.

What I am at a loss to understand is why anyone would want to spend several k on a bike and not spec every component themselves. Apart from anything else, that's part of the fun quite apart from the knowledge that your bike is unique as well as expensive!

hulla the hulla

neeb wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Is it just me, or has the market changed in the last 2 or 3 years such that in the mid to higher-end price brackets it is no longer more economical to buy a complete bike in any case? When I look at the specs of some of the higher-end bikes and their prices, it seems that you could often buy the frameset and components and build it up yourself for about the same or less money. That's not the case at the lower end certainly, but there seems to be a point where the prices of complete bikes start to become less good value.

I think that people are more aware, more able to spec bikes and components that they really want / need and the fact that there are retailers out there who are willing / able to offer good discounts, thus bringing the cost of a custom spec bike down to similar levels of prebuilt off the shelf stuff.

neeb

Rolf F wrote:

What I am at a loss to understand is why anyone would want to spend several k on a bike and not spec every component themselves. Apart from anything else, that's part of the fun quite apart from the knowledge that your bike is unique as well as expensive!

Me too. Perhaps the manufacturers have realised that the sort of person who wants to buy a £6000 bike as a complete package is probably going to be someone with more money than real cycling experience and that they can get away with high prices. It's different at the lower end of the market where you can genuinely get better value by buying a whole bike (even if you also have to buy some decent wheels to go with it).

NickintheLakes

xpc316e wrote:

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

On the other hand, if I were buying a Rolls Royce I would expect Rolls Royce levels of kit.

ddraver

Rolf F wrote:

xpc316e wrote:

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

Who's talking about Rolls Royce kit levels. TBH, for £1200 I'd prefer not to pay for rigid tyres that are almost impossible to get off the rim when I could pay another £20 and have Schwalbe Ultremos or £20 less and have no tyres at all. Or the same price and have my own choice of good tyres for £10 a pop.

Well, Ok, but would you have payed 1250 for the bike to get good tyres, or would you rather they specced a lower level saddle, handlebar, BB etc....

Plus remember that they work off RRP's not CRC/Wiggle prices

team47b

Just read today's contender review...

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... o-12-45956

So sh/wheels, budget tyres, 9.4kg, tiagra throughout, (but on the positive side you do get a lot of spacers for the money)

So why is it a contender?

As the review points out this is a bike that is so last decade, again why is it a contender in the year 2012?




Oh yeah, you do get "the cachet of the Pinarello name"

silly me.

I take your view that you will always need to change a few bits, but this one would be a very long and expensive list

rolf_f

ddraver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

xpc316e wrote:

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

Who's talking about Rolls Royce kit levels. TBH, for £1200 I'd prefer not to pay for rigid tyres that are almost impossible to get off the rim when I could pay another £20 and have Schwalbe Ultremos or £20 less and have no tyres at all. Or the same price and have my own choice of good tyres for £10 a pop.

Well, Ok, but would you have payed 1250 for the bike to get good tyres, or would you rather they specced a lower level saddle, handlebar, BB etc....

Plus remember that they work off RRP's not CRC/Wiggle prices

I don't think you read my post properly! (Or I didn't write it properly!!) The point is I'd have happily had no tyres with the Ribble costs of that refunded. And the £10 tyres are Ribbles own prices though I'm not sure what they charge for R1s. Lower spec other componentry is irrelevant as I'd either pay extra for better tyres or less for none.

The only option I don't want to do is pay my own money for something I don't want. I never wanted the Nitro tyres and I was right not to want them. I'd have given Ribble the profit off those tyres as long as I didn't have to pay the costs (what do they make off a £10 tyre - probably £3. Therefore, no tyres and a £14 discount gives Ribble the same profit and saves me almost 3/4s the cost of a decent tyre)

keef66

With hindsight I probably did the right thing and bought from Epic Cycles. Pretty thorough test rides and fittings, they ordered in the frame I needed rather than trying to sell me what they had in stock, and I got to choose every component including the tyres which are still going after 3+ years.

Cool4catz

From a newbie point of view I'm looking to the experts to recommend a great off the shelf product that I can enjoy and meet my needs. I'm looking at the Trek Madone 3.5 as one that comes with good recommendations. Maybe as the years progress and my interest and knowledge builds I will look at individual components but the bike of the year should be a package not a, yes but.........

ddraver

Rolf F wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

xpc316e wrote:

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

Who's talking about Rolls Royce kit levels. TBH, for £1200 I'd prefer not to pay for rigid tyres that are almost impossible to get off the rim when I could pay another £20 and have Schwalbe Ultremos or £20 less and have no tyres at all. Or the same price and have my own choice of good tyres for £10 a pop.

Well, Ok, but would you have payed 1250 for the bike to get good tyres, or would you rather they specced a lower level saddle, handlebar, BB etc....

Plus remember that they work off RRP's not CRC/Wiggle prices

I don't think you read my post properly! (Or I didn't write it properly!!) The point is I'd have happily had no tyres with the Ribble costs of that refunded. And the £10 tyres are Ribbles own prices though I'm not sure what they charge for R1s. Lower spec other componentry is irrelevant as I'd either pay extra for better tyres or less for none.

The only option I don't want to do is pay my own money for something I don't want. I never wanted the Nitro tyres and I was right not to want them. I'd have given Ribble the profit off those tyres as long as I didn't have to pay the costs (what do they make off a £10 tyre - probably £3. Therefore, no tyres and a £14 discount gives Ribble the same profit and saves me almost 3/4s the cost of a decent tyre)

I get your point and sympathise (and I'm partly playing Devil's advocate) but where do you draw the line? If Customer X walked in having just bought a Chris king headest or BB and wanted a new bike without those, would that be OK? Places like this is where they make some extra pennies, if they made bits of them optional (for everyone, not just the one time), they'd loose out.

knownothingbozo

It seems that bike of the year in the £1000 to £2000 price range would be a better title of the whole thing. That way you then know exactly what it is saying.
That said, reading the reviews of the contenders so far, it seems the best option is still to buy last years bike of the year! Some cracking bikes, with 4 and 5 star reviews.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/s ... ear-29529/

rolf_f

ddraver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

xpc316e wrote:

If you buy a Ford Focus, you wouldn't expect Rolls Royce levels of kit so why should bikes be any different?

Who's talking about Rolls Royce kit levels. TBH, for £1200 I'd prefer not to pay for rigid tyres that are almost impossible to get off the rim when I could pay another £20 and have Schwalbe Ultremos or £20 less and have no tyres at all. Or the same price and have my own choice of good tyres for £10 a pop.

Well, Ok, but would you have payed 1250 for the bike to get good tyres, or would you rather they specced a lower level saddle, handlebar, BB etc....

Plus remember that they work off RRP's not CRC/Wiggle prices

I don't think you read my post properly! (Or I didn't write it properly!!) The point is I'd have happily had no tyres with the Ribble costs of that refunded. And the £10 tyres are Ribbles own prices though I'm not sure what they charge for R1s. Lower spec other componentry is irrelevant as I'd either pay extra for better tyres or less for none.

The only option I don't want to do is pay my own money for something I don't want. I never wanted the Nitro tyres and I was right not to want them. I'd have given Ribble the profit off those tyres as long as I didn't have to pay the costs (what do they make off a £10 tyre - probably £3. Therefore, no tyres and a £14 discount gives Ribble the same profit and saves me almost 3/4s the cost of a decent tyre)

I get your point and sympathise (and I'm partly playing Devil's advocate) but where do you draw the line? If Customer X walked in having just bought a Chris king headest or BB and wanted a new bike without those, would that be OK? Places like this is where they make some extra pennies, if they made bits of them optional (for everyone, not just the one time), they'd loose out.

I suspect you draw the line at the point where a lot of your customers won't bother to change the component even if they would prefer something else or if the options are fairly trivial (a stem is a stem is a stem). My Orange MTB came with a Truvativ BB which was well known to be crap. I still only replaced that when it wore out (which it took no time at all to do!). On the other hand, the Pro Race Nitros I would have put up with until I wore them out had they not been such a liability puncture wise. The other mildly duff component was the San Marco Ponza saddle which, on the miles I was doing, caused saddle sores. However, that bike was never going to come with an Arione and the Ponza is a decent enough saddle - if not for me.

lochindaal

I think the problem is if you have been into cycling for a few years then what you get for your money now is so low on the component spec compared with 3 years ago. To buy an out the box option looks a bad option.

I have just been asked by a friend to recommend a £1K bike and what is on offer as value for money is now very limited.

Even at entry level where the Spec Allez was always a great option their lowest model now comes with Shimano 2300 groupset. When I bought my Allez when I started cycling it came with Tiagra at this level. Now to get that level you are on a £700 bike.