Choosing a 650b...

mcvw

Hi,

After selling my trusty 1992 Kona Kilauea last year (yes I know, blasphemy!), I'm yearning for a replacement, and in looking at replacements I did consider a 29er but found them to feel/be too 'big' and a bit clumsy.

So... now I naturally find myself looking at a 650b, and below are the three contenders I've shortlisted.

Whyte 901
http://www.cyclesuk.com/10492200/produc ... phite.aspx

On-One 45650
http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/CBOO45650BD ... ntain-bike

Scott 760 Scale
http://www.scott-sports.com/global/en/p ... -760-bike/

Of these three, the only one that I've actually been able to try is the Whyte 901. I instantly felt comfortable on it - it felt 'long' like my old Kona, but also not too 'big'. However, a few friends (and my LBS) have commented that the 901 (and also the 45650) are both proper full-on-hardcore trail bikes - as opposed to woods/towpath/light trails that I'll be riding mostly (at first).

So, should I heed this warning and opt for the Scott (middle-ground performer), or maybe take a chance with the On-One (cheaper than the Whyte - but fork has even more travel than the Whyte), or go with the Whyte (that I 'know').

I should add, that I have a £1000 limit via the cycle2work scheme

Thank you,


Mike

mcvw

Hi,

Lot's of views... no comments

Just wondering if the Boardman Comp would be comparable to any of the bikes I've mentioned previously? I know it's a lot cheaper - but spec-wise it's a bit special (no pun intended)

http://www.boardmanbikes.com/mtb/ht_comp650b.html

Thanks,


Mike

The Rookie

For your usage it certainly suggests an XC bike would be better suited than a more hardcore one.

Not sure what price you are looking at on the Scott but it has a very basic fork you'd find on a circa £500 bike from Boardman.

I don't like 29ers for the same reasons you give but have never tried 650B.

benpinnick

Im biased but if you are thinking about the Whyte then this needs to be on your list I reckon: http://shop.birdmtb.com/zero/zero-4.html

mcvw

Hi,

Thanks for the comments. I have a budget of £1000 (cycle2work scheme) - which I can top up if needed. And, I agree that for the riding I'll be doing a less full-on bike would be better suited. However, I liked the feel/riding position of the 901 much more than other bikes I've tried (Whyte 629, Whyte 605, Cube Ltd Pro).

I've never seen/tried the Bird. Will take a look.

I'll pop into Halfords at the w/e and take a look at the Boardman.

Cheers,


Mike

The Rookie

mcvw wrote:

Thanks for the comments. I have a budget of £1000 (cycle2work scheme) - which I can top up if needed.

Are you sure? It is totally against the rules and most schemes will not allow it, after all, who owns the bike?

mcvw

The Rookie wrote:

mcvw wrote:

Thanks for the comments. I have a budget of £1000 (cycle2work scheme) - which I can top up if needed.

Are you sure? It is totally against the rules and most schemes will not allow it, after all, who owns the bike?

Cycle Surgery said I could pay the extra. They also made a comment about including accessories up to 20% of the bikes value? Is this maybe how they circumvent any upper limit?

The Rookie

Most companies have no credit licence hence are limited to £1000, paying cash for accessories is then outside C2W so no issue, but 'topping up' the bike is not allowed, is tax avoidance (criminal offence) and can lead to a world of pain as at the end of the year they don't have to offer to let you keep the bike in any way and could just take it leaving you your top up out of pocket (ignoring the fact that paying full list price for a years lease would be a right royal rip off!)

OceanOne

Hi mcvw
I bought the 650b Whyte 901 about 3 months ago and I have never had a bike that makes me want to ride so much. This bike is a great all rounder, not just a full on hardcore trail bike and from what you say sounds perfect for you. I too felt comfortable as soon as I sat on it and took it for a test ride, it felt perfect for me and that is the most important thing (IMO). Of the bikes I have had, this is my favourite and makes me want to ride. My other bike that I have was an expensive mistake for me as I haven't touched it since having this. Sometimes you should go with your first instinct.

benpinnick

How would topping up be a criminal offence? As long as the bike is sold to the company for the £1000 limit value then everything balances. There's no rule that says the value of the _goods_ must be the same as the loan. The rules are that the loan cannot exceed £1000 without an additional CCL. The company is within its rights to supply any value bike at any price it sees fit. There is no link between the purchase price, value of goods or the loan itself. Those are entirely independent factors. The key point being that the company is loaning goods not money to the employee.

As an example - person x walks into a shop and wants to buy a bike on C2W that retails for £1200. He arranges for his employer to buy the bike via C2W for £1000. As compensation for the discount price (between himself and the shop) he buys a water bottle for £200. The arrangement between himself and the shop in order to secure a discount on the bike of £200 is entirely between him and the shop. I can't see how any party is breaking the rules here.

benpinnick

I should point out though that the calculation of market value at the end would need to take into account the full price of the bike.

The Rookie

benpinnick wrote:

How would topping up be a criminal offence?

Because Ride to work is a tax scheme, don't follow the rules and you don't qualify for the tax break (it's not solely a lease agreement), if you then use it as a tax break that is tax avoidance which is a criminal offence. simple really!

benpinnick

The Rookie wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

How would topping up be a criminal offence?

Because Ride to work is a tax scheme, don't follow the rules and you don't qualify for the tax break (it's not solely a lease agreement), if you then use it as a tax break that is tax avoidance which is a criminal offence. simple really!

Thats my point though, since there is no rule that says the bike has to be worth the amount of the loan, which rule are you breaking?

The Rookie

Who's is the bike? The R2W supplier or you?

And it's not a loan, you lease the bike for a year (for a dreadful rate!), at the end of it it's not your bike, the scheme can chose to come to a further arrangement but don't have to and more importantly MUST NOT commit to prior to the years lease.

benpinnick

Lease/loan... my point is that - the bike belongs to your employer or the scheme, not you. The value of the bike loaned is immaterial, only the value of the lease counts. For example, I could, as a manufacturer lease bikes to my staff at below their market value (as we make them and all). If I did so, the employee would not be liable for any BiK on the lease despite my company paying alot less for the bike than its 'price tag', nor would it be tax avoidance. I just cant see how topping up is any different... as long as the ownership is clear (hence my comment on selling a water bottle for £200) then I think its well within the rules. But maybe thats just me.

The Rookie

So to come back, who owns the bike if he puts money in? As such the issue is then what is he leasing, his bike or the company's, what if at the end of the scheme they decide there is a nice profit to be made from keeping and selling on....any implied promise he can keep the bike is contrary to the tax break rules. To correct, if the lease to an employee was at significantly below what he could get for a normal lease it would be a BiK.....

I doubt want to get into how badly run the schemes are, but they are, very badly.....charging the rrp for a years lease when at the end of it it has only lost 50% of it's value? that wouldn't work in the real world.

kajjal

benpinnick wrote:

Lease/loan... my point is that - the bike belongs to your employer or the scheme, not you. The value of the bike loaned is immaterial, only the value of the lease counts. For example, I could, as a manufacturer lease bikes to my staff at below their market value (as we make them and all). If I did so, the employee would not be liable for any BiK on the lease despite my company paying alot less for the bike than its 'price tag', nor would it be tax avoidance. I just cant see how topping up is any different... as long as the ownership is clear (hence my comment on selling a water bottle for £200) then I think its well within the rules. But maybe thats just me.

The bike has to have a single owner based on its retail price. Unless your company has a consumer credit licence this is limited to £1,000. A few years ago this was not the case.

If you leased bikes to your employees at below market value the inland revenue would be very interested in the same way if a car company did the same.

mcvw

Hi guys,

The comments regarding cycle2work/topping up are all very helpful. My basic understanding is that after a year I can 'buy' my bike from my company - for a final payment (at an agreed %age of the bike's market value - usually 5 or 7% based upon friends who've been involved in similar schemes)

Ok... Back to the bikes...

I've just been looking at this Boardman - and comparing it against the Whyte 901 (which is top of my list at the moment). Would appreciate any comments regarding the Boardman.

http://www.boardmanbikes.com/mtb/ht_team650b.html

Thank you,


Mike

curto80

1) Topping up might cause problems with your employer if ever there was a dispute over ownership but in practice its unlikely.
2) I don't think topping up is tax fraud, that is a far fetched interpretation.
3) The cheapest option at the end of Year 1 is to extend the hire term by another 3 years. There's a cost to this but it's a lot less than the cost of taking the option acquire the bike - the option to buy is expensive and basically erodes any tax benefit. Downside is that you are still subject to the scheme rules during the extended period. Technically at least.
4) Whyte MTBs are fantastic. I have last year's 801 and its lovely - the 901 being a step up will do you proud.

benpinnick

Kajjal wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

Lease/loan... my point is that - the bike belongs to your employer or the scheme, not you. The value of the bike loaned is immaterial, only the value of the lease counts. For example, I could, as a manufacturer lease bikes to my staff at below their market value (as we make them and all). If I did so, the employee would not be liable for any BiK on the lease despite my company paying alot less for the bike than its 'price tag', nor would it be tax avoidance. I just cant see how topping up is any different... as long as the ownership is clear (hence my comment on selling a water bottle for £200) then I think its well within the rules. But maybe thats just me.

The bike has to have a single owner based on its retail price. Unless your company has a consumer credit licence this is limited to £1,000. A few years ago this was not the case.

If you leased bikes to your employees at below market value the inland revenue would be very interested in the same way if a car company did the same.

Please can you (and I mean this sincerely) post up a link to the updated rules regarding the retail price basis if you have one. Ta

kajjal

Ring the inland revenue and they can answer any questions you have on the scheme. There are only two real exemptions to the £1,000 limit, if your employer has a consumer credit licence or if the rider has special needs e.g. Being very, very tall and not fitting on standard bikes etc.

benpinnick

Kajjal wrote:

Ring the inland revenue and they can answer any questions you have on the scheme. There are only two real exemptions to the £1,000 limit, if your employer has a consumer credit licence or if the rider has special needs e.g. Being very, very tall and not fitting on standard bikes etc.

Rofl. Have you called HMRC recently? You always get the stock answer 'Read the guidance note'. In my experience calling HMRC is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot.

mcvw

Ok...

So today I went and had a look at the Boardman's (the 650b Team, and the 650b Comp), a Whyte 605, and also the Whyte 901 (again).

The Boardman's were both nice - and both have good spec, but they didn't 'do it' for me. They have a 'mass produced' feel to them, unlike the Whyte's which felt like they have more attention to detail.

The frames on the Whyte's look great (the 901 is super beefy compared to the 605), and like I say, the attention to detail (cable routing, seatpost clamps, stem, bar clamps) is great.

I almost pulled the trigger on the 605 (at £650 it seems fantastic), and it felt 'similar' to the 901, but what put me off was the spec of its components

I still really like the 901, but is it really worth almost double the 605? In my opinion the spec on the Boardman's is

Is there a Whyte (or alternative) that sits between the 605 and the 901?

Thanks,


Mike

paul.skibum

mcvw wrote:

Ok...

So today I went and had a look at the Boardman's (the 650b Team, and the 650b Comp), a Whyte 605, and also the Whyte 901 (again).

The Boardman's were both nice - and both have good spec, but they didn't 'do it' for me. They have a 'mass produced' feel to them, unlike the Whyte's which felt like they have more attention to detail.

The frames on the Whyte's look great (the 901 is super beefy compared to the 605), and like I say, the attention to detail (cable routing, seatpost clamps, stem, bar clamps) is great.

I almost pulled the trigger on the 605 (at £650 it seems fantastic), and it felt 'similar' to the 901, but what put me off was the spec of its components

I still really like the 901, but is it really worth almost double the 605? In my opinion the spec on the Boardman's is

Is there a Whyte (or alternative) that sits between the 605 and the 901?

Thanks,


Mike

In a word - yes.

The 901 is a proper mountain bike with spec to inspire and last - the 605 is a gateway to ownership bike that will need parts replacing or improving to keep you satisfied as you improve and push your limits. The 901 will be lighter, better performing, have crisper gears, better fork, decent tyres, just better - the upgrade you get on the 901 cost more than the rrp increase.

cooldad

The 605 has similar spec to Rockriders at half the price.
Internal cable routing might look pretty, but in my opinion is a PITA. I'd much rather have the money spent on forks.

mcvw

Yep, the 901 certainly looks bombproof, and great components etc.

I noticed the whyte 805 is specced pretty good. Will go back tomorrow and see if they have one in the shop to try.

http://www.cyclesurgery.com/pws/UniqueP ... lsrc=aw.ds

Also, does anybody know when whyte bring out the 2015 range? Maybe if I hold out I could get the 901 at a lower price?

benpinnick

Its already 'out' but when they will arrive in the UK? Aug/Sept probably?

HenryTheHoover

I had a 92 / 93 P2 Kilauea. I loved that bike. I now have a Boardman. My next bike will most probably be a 901 or a Cotic Soul / BFe framed build. Boardmans are good value bike with some niggles but ultimately there is something missing in terms of grin factor for me when riding it. It was good value but now I have worn out and replaced a few bits it doesnt seem as relevant..

mcvw

Bad news. There are no 805's - in size Medium - available anywhere in the UK

General consensus (from ringing several stockists) is that Whyte purposely held back/didn't produce too many 2014 bikes. Hopefully more 2015 models will be released before the end of the summer!!!

I also still didn't manage to find/try a Scott Scale 760 (Medium). Neither Evans (Guildford or Woking) had any

I was tempted - briefly - by a Specialized Rockhopper Pro Evo - (as I was a bit bored) but the spec, and it being a 29er, prevented me from being taken in by it's lovely lime green livery

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/spe ... e-ec053577