Are there any bad bikes £1k - £2K?

Apeman14

Having been properly bitten by the cycling bug, I'm thinking of biting the bullet and stepping up from my first road bike that cost £500 and getting one at £1k+. The choice is mind boggling. Every time I look at what's available I end up changing my mind again.
Am I wasting my time looking so? Surely there are no bad bikes in this price range? Orbea, Ribble, Planet X, Cube, Trek - they all look good and I can get 105 groupsets on all of them (or equivalent).
Should I stop pontificating and just get the one that I like the look of best?
Or is there some rubbish out there I need to know about?
Thanks

napoleond

1- does it fit?
2- do you like the look of it?
3- is it suitable for its intended use?
4- can you afford it?

If the answer to the above is yes, go for it!

CYCLESPORT1

No - just bad riders

Daz555

Every bike which does not fit you is a bad bike.

debeli

This question is now very similar to the ones facing buyers of cars, white goods and televisions.

Marque loyalties and Pro-Peloton wannabe aspirations can turn the eye of the buyer, but the differences in this price range are marginal and often down to style and fashion as much as anything.

I'd choose the bike for the frame primarily. Almost everything else is (ultimately) a service item.

This is not the best time of year for it, but do consider looking at last year's bikes. Changes will be few (and mostly cosmetic) but savings can be made. Not so easy to find in May, but there may be deals out there.

Find one you like, one that fits you and imagine it with chips on the lacquer and grime in the gears. If you still like it, that's the one.

Do not ignore the LBS sector. Many of them are finding sales a little squeezed by online vendors and may have a super-duper bargain in your size. I do not mean this as encouragement to shiv the independent trader when you can... I am a serial LBS shopper and although I shave prices as much as I can, he is glad of the trade and we are both happy.

supermurph09

Obviously the fit is key. As a benchmark load up the Canyon page and look at the range they do in the £1k - £2k price range, it's huge and massive value for money. If you like anything buy it as you won't be disappointed. If you prefer to buy from your LBS, use the Canyon's to benchmark against what they have. Then buy the Canyon!

sloppyschleckonds

As others have said, there probably aren't any bad bikes but there are poorly specced bikes within that range.
Canyon are pretty much the benchmark for how far your money would stretch as are Rose bikes.

More money = lighter groupset and better wheels.

norvernrob

As said above, it's worth looking for previous years models still available in the odd size, especially if you're spending around the £2k mark. Paul's cycles, Westbrooks and a few others always have some heavily discounted top spec bikes in.

My mate got a Synapse Hi Mod with Red 22 and Ksyrium Elite wheels etc for £2k recently, you couldn't buy the parts for anywhere close to that.

ai_1

Debeli wrote:

....I'd choose the bike for the frame primarily. Almost everything else is (ultimately) a service item....

Not sure I agree. It really depends how much you ride and whether or not you're a compulsive upgrader!

If, like me you only ride 4000km to 6000km per year then you'll get several years out of your bike without needing to replace much other than tyres, chains, cassette, brake blocks and bar tape. So, if you know what you'll be happy with and buy accordingly, you're best advised to consider it a complete bike, not a frame with some temporary parts attached. Upgrading is often poor value as a way to get teh bike you want. Buying a complete bike is cheapest, i.e. the cost is usually well below the sum of the parts prices. Building up a bike from new parts is , I believe, generally a fair bit more expensive but you can have exactly what you want. Buying a complete bike that's not quite as you want it and then upgrading various components is usually, I suspect, the most expensive route since it means you buy a complete bike and then buy some of it again. You may ride some of the original parts into the ground before upgrading but if upgrades were your intention from the start then you've been riding the wrong bike. You can remove parts straight away and sell them off but you'll still make a loss.

ForumNewbie

Ai_1 wrote:

Debeli wrote:

....I'd choose the bike for the frame primarily. Almost everything else is (ultimately) a service item....

Not sure I agree. It really depends how much you ride and whether or not you're a compulsive upgrader!

If, like me you only ride 4000km to 6000km per year then you'll get several years out of your bike without needing to replace much other than tyres, chains, cassette, brake blocks and bar tape. So, if you know what you'll be happy with and buy accordingly, you're best advised to consider it a complete bike, not a frame with some temporary parts attached. Upgrading is often poor value as a way to get teh bike you want. Buying a complete bike is cheapest, i.e. the cost is usually well below the sum of the parts prices. Building up a bike from new parts is , I believe, generally a fair bit more expensive but you can have exactly what you want. Buying a complete bike that's not quite as you want it and then upgrading various components is usually, I suspect, the most expensive route since it means you buy a complete bike and then buy some of it again. You may ride some of the original parts into the ground before upgrading but if upgrades were your intention from the start then you've been riding the wrong bike. You can remove parts straight away and sell them off but you'll still make a loss.

I agree. It annoys me when you read reviews in bike magazines of new bikes, when it says nice bike but if you buy a new set of wheels for say £300+ it will be really good. If I had just spent £1500 on a new bike, I certainly would not want to immediately spend another £300+ on new wheels. Better to get a bike with decent wheels to start with.

mfin

ForumNewbie wrote:

I agree. It annoys me when you read reviews in bike magazines of new bikes, when it says nice bike but if you buy a new set of wheels for say £300+ it will be really good. If I had just spent £1500 on a new bike, I certainly would not want to immediately spend another £300+ on new wheels. Better to get a bike with decent wheels to start with.

Yep, but the vast majority of road bikes come with wheels that let them down. Simple fact really, so it's not reviewers being daft. (There are some exceptions to bikes with poorly specced wheels of course, Canyon are one make that seem to try to spec wheels reasonably).

You'd be better off getting annoyed at manufacturers selling bikes with wheels that let the rest of the bike down.

Like you say, it is better to get a bike with decent wheels to start with if you don't want to budget for any changes. Wheels take no time to change though, and changing them when you buy the bike means you can sell the ones that came with it to get some of the money back (or keep them for rubbish weather, another bike, one with a dedicated tyre for a turbo etc)

chrisw12

That's a great point about wheels. When looking at new bikes the wheels always seem a spec down, same goes for tyres as well, I saw a £5000 superbike somewhere with mid range conti's on it, very strange. One of the posters is right, yeah I could (and do) change them but why should I.

I think there are some dog's in that price range, well ones I'd definitely avoid. Ones with a certain type of infamous bottom bracket, ones that don't have clearance for 25mm tyres for instance.

debeli

Ai_1 wrote:

Debeli wrote:

....I'd choose the bike for the frame primarily. Almost everything else is (ultimately) a service item....

Not sure I agree. It really depends how much you ride and whether or not you're a compulsive upgrader!

If, like me you only ride 4000km to 6000km per year then you'll get several years out of your bike without needing to replace much other than tyres, chains, cassette, brake blocks and bar tape. So, if you know what you'll be happy with and buy accordingly, you're best advised to consider it a complete bike, not a frame with some temporary parts attached. Upgrading is often poor value as a way to get teh bike you want. Buying a complete bike is cheapest, i.e. the cost is usually well below the sum of the parts prices. Building up a bike from new parts is , I believe, generally a fair bit more expensive but you can have exactly what you want. Buying a complete bike that's not quite as you want it and then upgrading various components is usually, I suspect, the most expensive route since it means you buy a complete bike and then buy some of it again. You may ride some of the original parts into the ground before upgrading but if upgrades were your intention from the start then you've been riding the wrong bike. You can remove parts straight away and sell them off but you'll still make a loss.

I cannot disagree with this - and I stand by my original comment. You and I have different ways of saying broadly the same thing.

I am (or was) a high-mileage rider and I have ancient bikes still on their original frame, wheels, bars and brackets. One or two have knacked their wheels and some other bits have gone west through accidents...

But essentially the frame IS the bicycle. I would still recommend buying for the frame. I do not say this as a proponent of upgrading. I'm not sure I've ever upgraded in my life, unless a part has worn out and I've replaced it (by coincidence) with something better.

Nonetheless, I do not own a bicycle of which the core and key component is not the frame/forks. Indeed, in these days of all road bikes having 700c rims, I switch this part and that over a year between bikes. It is always the frame that I ride - and the frame that gives the bicycle its bicycleness. And (to me) its value.