Tesco BS0

Giraffoto

Initialised wrote:

Giraffoto wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

There should be a minimum level of reliability. Bikes like that will fall apart after 100 miles... yet the carbon footprint to build them and scrap them is huge.

They don't always get scrapped. At my local recycling centre there's always a huge choice of these cheap-but-way-too-heavy machines available, and if they get bought by someone who rides it to work (or school) instead of driving, it's still reducing car use. And maybe they'll even get to like cycling as well.

Yes but they only become reasonable bikes after they've had the once over from a competent mechanic and most of the bits that'll fall off/apart have been replaced with old but functional bits. . . .

I feel I should explain this a bit further, and maybe supply examples.

On my way too and from work, I pass cyclists. (I drive. Sorry.) Some of them are on nice shiny bikes like the ones we like to ride, some wear lycra, many wear helmets. These aren't the majority. Most are riding clunkers like the Tesco costs-less-than-its-weight-in-strawberries, slowly, wearing hi-viz vests, joggers and trainers, jeans and work boots, and as often as not, on the pavement. At least two of them ride to the local recycling centre where they probably got the bike in the first place, and that's a couple of miles each way. Maybe they're not doing it to keep fit, or because they love cycling - petrol's expensive, and bus services non-existent in most of the country - but they're cycling, and while they're on the bike, they're cyclists.

It would be nice to think that among these people there are one or two who, on a beautiful Summer morning, think to themselves, "this isn't so bad, it'd be fun to ride to the park with the children at the weekend."

So maybe I'm being optimistic here. I don't disagree that the Tesco clunkers are unnecessarily bad - they shouldn't bother with suspension and they should have 1x gears, which would make them about 3kg lighter straight away - I disagree with the proposition that BSOs are all bad news

lakesluddite

Sorry to be incredibly naive, but what the flip does BSO mean?

I'm over 40, and not down with the kids modern way of speaking you know....(gets up out of Shackleton high seat chair and pops another Werthers original in mouth)...

drlodge

BSO=Bicycle Shaped Object

lakesluddite

drlodge wrote:

BSO=Bicycle Shaped Object

Ahh..Cheers Doc.

chris_bass

Giraffoto wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Giraffoto wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

There should be a minimum level of reliability. Bikes like that will fall apart after 100 miles... yet the carbon footprint to build them and scrap them is huge.

They don't always get scrapped. At my local recycling centre there's always a huge choice of these cheap-but-way-too-heavy machines available, and if they get bought by someone who rides it to work (or school) instead of driving, it's still reducing car use. And maybe they'll even get to like cycling as well.

Yes but they only become reasonable bikes after they've had the once over from a competent mechanic and most of the bits that'll fall off/apart have been replaced with old but functional bits. . . .

I feel I should explain this a bit further, and maybe supply examples.

On my way too and from work, I pass cyclists. (I drive. Sorry.) Some of them are on nice shiny bikes like the ones we like to ride, some wear lycra, many wear helmets. These aren't the majority. Most are riding clunkers like the Tesco costs-less-than-its-weight-in-strawberries, slowly, wearing hi-viz vests, joggers and trainers, jeans and work boots, and as often as not, on the pavement. At least two of them ride to the local recycling centre where they probably got the bike in the first place, and that's a couple of miles each way. Maybe they're not doing it to keep fit, or because they love cycling - petrol's expensive, and bus services non-existent in most of the country - but they're cycling, and while they're on the bike, they're cyclists.

It would be nice to think that among these people there are one or two who, on a beautiful Summer morning, think to themselves, "this isn't so bad, it'd be fun to ride to the park with the children at the weekend."

So maybe I'm being optimistic here. I don't disagree that the Tesco clunkers are unnecessarily bad - they shouldn't bother with suspension and they should have 1x gears, which would make them about 3kg lighter straight away - I disagree with the proposition that BSOs are all bad news

+1 to this, some peopkle just want to get to where they are going a bit quicker than walking and for that tesco (or ASDA judging by the pic on the first page) bikes are fine. not everyone rides a bike for enjoyment or is likely to, its a bit like assuming all people commuting to work by car attend track days.

ManOfKent

ben@31 wrote:

I bet Marcel Kittel, on one of these bikes, could beat most of the forum users.

I bet Marcel Kittel would break one of those bikes if he tried to sprint flat-out on it.

Old_Timer

My son got sucked into the BSO trap here in the states with our equivalent of the Tesco, a GMC Denali from Wal-Mart. He wanted to buy a bicycle on his own and not use the old man's input to show he could do things while away at university/seminary. He came home on the next weekend with a long face as things went wrong as soon as he got the thing to his dormitory. It had been set up completely wrong and the shifting mechs went south on its first ride. NOt knowing what had happened he went back to the box store for Chinese made crap trying to get them to make it right. No way, they said, its yours and you need to see a mechanic.

I explained what was wrong after examining it and offered to put some parts I had on to get it ridable, and what it needed from the shifting mechs wrapping up so badly. He was totally disheartened and basically gave it away to some student that flips bicycles. I let him ride my old '97 R500T Cannondale until he graduated. He recently called and asked me to guide him on finding a bicycle he could use for commuting and recreation, I'll gladly walk him along and even fly up to help him, when he needs.

These things are hazards and they discourage too many people from sticking with cycling.

bigjim

I bought a brand new MTB for £60. More for curiosity than anything else. It arrived with a punctured tyre. However I sorted it out, greased the dry bearings and went for a 20 mile run. It was dreadful, but I was comparing it to my older but more expensive, in their day, machines.
I gave it to my son who had no transport. He used it everyday for work, shopping, off road at weekends and thoroughly abused it. All weathers. He only ever, reluctantly, changed the brake pads. Well I changed them.
Eventually he gave it back to me, full of scrapes, scratches wobbly wheels etc. He'd now got some money and bought an expensive Orange MTB. These days he also rides a full carbon road bike, often with me.
Would he have done that without the cheap bike experience? It did it's job fine as far as I'm concerned.

rodgers73

My wife bought something that probably just squeezes into BSO territory when compared with the example in this thread - a £180 Raleigh MTB. Her mate's husband used to run a bike shot and he should have been ashamed of what he sold her. She did the odd ride to the shops on it and so on and then one day we set off on a slightly ambitious 50 mile ride to York on the Transpennine Trail.

We were about 10 miles in when the pedal sheered off and the crank seemed to be buggered, leaving us stranded. Her mum had to come out and pick us up. We got it fixed (£60) but she never really rode it again and in the end it was sold on ebay for (I think) about £40.

A year later she's replaced with a Specialized hybrid (£400 in Evans's sale) that won't set the world alight but at least it shouldn't just break.

MountainMonster

As much as the bikes may be crap, I managed to use a cheap one for a few years, which considering the cost, was a great investment.

I think people just need to stop worrying about what other people are doing/buying all the time and simply be happy less people are getting into cars and more are on bikes (regardless of price). Some people can not afford bikes that cost more than the Tescos 'BSO', but does that mean they should not get out on a bike?

craker

Also it's not all about people who might get into cycling if only they had a slightly better bike. For some it ticks the short, slow ride box.

I've got my neighbour's bike in my workshop at the mo. He just wants it to follow his daughter when she goes horse riding (only he's finding it hard to keep up with a a trotting horse).

The bike is your classic 16Kg (I weighed it) y frame dual suspension beastie. The crankset is shot (he carried on pedalling after a pedal came partially unscrewed), wheel bearings loose, both rims buckled so that the brakes rub (which is why he's unhooked them). The gears can't be made to index, the shifter is too stiff anyway. He's about to bin it...

Mr_Cellophane

This is how old bikes can help two sets of people
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-27407345

Daz555

BSO is not a snobbish term.

There is nowt wrong with a cheap bike. A BSO is something else though - they are simply not for for the purpose of transporting a human safely from A to B.

I tried to help a mate out who bought an ASDA full suss BSO for under 60 quid. It was a shambling mess of pig iron mixed with cheese. The pressed "steel" in the brakes and derailleur were so soft for example that they flexed visibly under the slightest pressure. The derailler would only stay true for about 20 gear changes.

BSO is EXACTLY the right description. It is a disgrace they are allowed to be sold at all.

My mate gave up with his BSO in the end and chucked it in the tip. He is now riding round on a lovely 80s road bike I saw in a charity shop for £45

cookeeemonster

Daz555 wrote:

BSO is not a snobbish term.

There is nowt wrong with a cheap bike. A BSO is something else though - they are simply not for for the purpose of transporting a human safely from A to B.

I tried to help a mate out who bought an ASDA full suss BSO for under 60 quid. It was a shambling mess of pig iron mixed with cheese. The pressed "steel" in the brakes and derailleur were so soft for example that they flexed visibly under the slightest pressure. The derailler would only stay true for about 20 gear changes.

BSO is EXACTLY the right description. It is a disgrace they are allowed to be sold at all.

My mate gave up with his BSO in the end and chucked it in the tip. He is now riding round on a lovely 80s road bike I saw in a charity shop for £45

+1

ic.

Asda have one of those bikes in my local. Set up exactly as shown in the pic. Quite unreal

Tried to pick it Up to judge weight but couldn't. I mean physically couldn't.

Wonder what the saddle bar drop is for reaching the brakes? Must be similar to Hesjedal's surely

Daz555

ben@31 wrote:

I bet Marcel Kittel, on one of these bikes, could beat most of the forum users.

He'd break it.

DavidJB

I'm a bike snob and openly admit it. Nice bikes are awesome and bikes like the one in the OP are an affront to cycling. BSO is a term I fully endorse.

Cyclum

I had to smile at this. My gear did cost more than his bike so maybe he should have invested his money in a different bike than the gear to look while he's at the side of the road trying to fix it.

neilo23 wrote:

...just a note for any newbies to cycling on the roads do your research and get the right gear you will find other road users will give you the respect on the road if you wear the correct gear when out cycling."

verylonglegs

The trouble is the majority of consumers aren't aware enough to realise that the deflation in cost that has occured in a lot of products, particularly electronics and clothing, isn't applicable to something like bikes. The cost of raw materials means that you'll get crap for those sort of prices, a base MTB was around £150 just over 20yrs ago and all the cheap labour in the world isn't going to allow that price to halve since then without a significant drop in quality.

chris_bass

verylonglegs wrote:

The trouble is the majority of consumers aren't aware enough to realise that the deflation in cost that has occured in a lot of products, particularly electronics and clothing, isn't applicable to something like bikes. The cost of raw materials means that you'll get crap for those sort of prices, a base MTB was around £150 just over 20yrs ago and all the cheap labour in the world isn't going to allow that price to halve since then without a significant drop in quality.

I dont think it really applies to electronic in a lot of cases either, get a £50 tablet and it will be worse than having no tablet!

Old_Timer

Daz555 wrote:

BSO is not a snobbish term.

There is nowt wrong with a cheap bike. A BSO is something else though - they are simply not for for the purpose of transporting a human safely from A to B.

I tried to help a mate out who bought an ASDA full suss BSO for under 60 quid. It was a shambling mess of pig iron mixed with cheese. The pressed "steel" in the brakes and derailleur were so soft for example that they flexed visibly under the slightest pressure. The derailler would only stay true for about 20 gear changes.

BSO is EXACTLY the right description. It is a disgrace they are allowed to be sold at all.

My mate gave up with his BSO in the end and chucked it in the tip. He is now riding round on a lovely 80s road bike I saw in a charity shop for £45

Couldn't agree more, it seems too many buy these cheap bicycles, especially during the various bike boom periods, and the poor set up, cheap/fragile components and poor performance drives the person away from cycling. No exact figures, but I imagine very few move up to a more suitable bicycle, from the BSO. The number of these that I see in thrift stores, or more often, at the curb for trash pick up is sizable. The local land fill always has a large number of them off to the side where dissatisfied owners throw them into the metals recycling bin, complete. No answer to keeping people interested in cycling past the boom periods, human nature and modern interest time spans have set this one in place. My son I previously mentioned in a reply was even educated as to suitable bicycles, he just had to show the Old Man what he could do.

Giraffoto

When I were a lad, a cheap bike was a no-frills bike - no gears, certainly no suspension (bikes didn't have it then) and nearly everything made of chrome plated steel. OK, the chrome plated steel made braking in the wet almost non-existent, but they were usable for pottering around town, or further if you felt like it. I'm not sure you can get this sort of bike any more, but they would be more suitable for most people than something with heavy but non-functioning front and rear suspension, 21 gears and disk brakes that don't work.

monkimark

^ couldn't agree more but it's a triumph of marketing over logic. People must see a £100 bike with full suspension and think they're getting something more than a rigid bike for £100, instead of wondering what corners must have been cut and what benefit it's going to be anyway.

For a bike that cheap, it's always going to be best to have the minimum amount of stuff - or go secondhand, or both.

verylonglegs

Chris Bass wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

The trouble is the majority of consumers aren't aware enough to realise that the deflation in cost that has occured in a lot of products, particularly electronics and clothing, isn't applicable to something like bikes. The cost of raw materials means that you'll get crap for those sort of prices, a base MTB was around £150 just over 20yrs ago and all the cheap labour in the world isn't going to allow that price to halve since then without a significant drop in quality.

I dont think it really applies to electronic in a lot of cases either, get a £50 tablet and it will be worse than having no tablet!

I don't think you are looking at it in quite the right way, the fact you can get a tablet for £50, or indeed a tablet of any kind, is the deflation I'm talking about. Their components parts were massively more expensive a few years ago or not even available in some cases. Remember when 4MB of RAM for a PC cost £120?! I paid £300 for a digital camera which is now lower quality than anything found on a smartphone. Low end bikes have not moved on technology wise in the same sense and so their cost should be relative to materials needed to make them.

chris_bass

verylonglegs wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

The trouble is the majority of consumers aren't aware enough to realise that the deflation in cost that has occured in a lot of products, particularly electronics and clothing, isn't applicable to something like bikes. The cost of raw materials means that you'll get crap for those sort of prices, a base MTB was around £150 just over 20yrs ago and all the cheap labour in the world isn't going to allow that price to halve since then without a significant drop in quality.

I dont think it really applies to electronic in a lot of cases either, get a £50 tablet and it will be worse than having no tablet!

I don't think you are looking at it in quite the right way, the fact you can get a tablet for £50, or indeed a tablet of any kind, is the deflation I'm talking about. Their components parts were massively more expensive a few years ago or not even available in some cases. Remember when 4MB of RAM for a PC cost £120?! I paid £300 for a digital camera which is now lower quality than anything found on a smartphone. Low end bikes have not moved on technology wise in the same sense and so their cost should be relative to materials needed to make them.

it is the same thing, you can get a tablet for £50 but the components are very cheap and slow and will break very quickly, much like the argument against £70 bikes. you are better off not getting the £50 tablet and you are better off not getting the £70 bike

alan_sherman

But where is the boundary for a BSO to a 'real' bike? My wife had an Apollo hybrid from Halfords a few years ago that was about £130 IIRC. Heavy, but after adjustements was actually a proficient commuter for a few years until stolen.

The replacement Giant hybrid does the same job, is lighter, and was about £200.


I'd suggest that all shimano kit will do the job, even the cheapest parts. Frames are heavy at the low end, but they do the job. The parts that seem to cause problems are bearings and wheels. Anything without alloy rims and stainless spokes should be avoided in my experience. Bottom brackets can survive for abit until replaced with a £10 shimano sealed one that lasts forever. Hub bearings without seals are Satan's sporn!

Just looked on Halfords and their cheapest bike is a ton. It looks like it would be OK. Not brilliant but OK.
http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bikes/h ... ke-18#tab2

it will be heavy (they say 14.2kg). I suspect the grip shifters will wear out relatively quickly but should work OK until they do. The bearings will all need greasing. The breaks may be hard to set up and may fail to retract due to poor tolerance and rust before too many years. But for commuting to work in a flat area it will do the job. Teh key is in setup and packing everythign with grease whilst it still works.


The transfer looks to be the closest to my wife's old bike spec at £130:
http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bikes/h ... ybrid-bike

Up to £200 you only really get a useless front suspension so the bikes get WORSE!

The first 'proper' bike seems to be the carrerra subway at £229. Possibly spoiled by cheap cable disc brakes (but I don't know them so that is just assumption). The pendleton brooke at the same price has V brakes that are easier to set up and maintain than discs. But is the Pendleton really twice the bike of the Trax? it'll e easier to work on, more comfortable, probably work 'better' and last longer. But do fundamentally the same thing.

You pays yer money, you takes your choice!

Cyclum

There is a market for cheap bikes. I have a relatively cheap one (granted not from a supermarket) for times when I want to cycle but without risking my precious roadbike. If I took my roadbike into town then I doubt the gear set would still be there on my return, and I certainly wouldn't want to put my carbon fibre frame under the additional forces of a child seat or panniers.

I would never cycle the distance on my cheap bike that I do on my roadbike, but then I wouldn't want to with a grumpy toddler anyway so cheap components and a 'disposable' bike suits me fine.

And a cheap bike with a child on the back is a great workout for the thighs.