the "i dont know **** about bikes" thread

[marshal]

What about deraliurs and hubs and what not? Like I said, I really don't know anything about bikes

 

[p nut]

Since you'll be working with a limited budget, I'd say something like SLX or X9 should be just fine. Most important parts on the bike are the wheels and frame, so you can skimp on drivetrain stuff for now. You can source some 9-speed parts for pretty cheap either on MTBR or ebay. Hubs are a part of a wheelset. Like I said, I've been using WTB's for years now with no issues. Though couple of years ago, I built up DT240 with Crests which are pretty sweet.

Just keep diligently searching for deals. I pieced together my old Vassago for ~$1,300, but it was a singlespeed, so no added expense of geared stuff.

 

[Flagster]

You simply cannot build a bike for less money than buying complete. Un-possible.

Let's look at a $1500 bike at regular retail. Such a bike will probably have a $500 fork. It will probably have $250 in just brakes alone. Wheels? Probably another $500. Tires alone are $85. There's a reason why bikes are sold complete and so few build from frame up. You'll spend roughly 20-30% more if you build part by part. The only way to make it a reasonable value is to find each and every one of your required parts at that 20-30% below MSRP. What a pain.

I totally agree for bikes under 2000.00 but with a larger price point I argue you can build much cheaper...and can spec a bike exactly as you like...
I find pleasure in the chase for parts and building the bikes...
All my bikes except for my road bike have been built up around a frame...and for much cheaper than I could buy a similarly priced built bike...
It is easy to find 40-50% discounts on parts especially the pricier ones like dura ace/xtr/xo/red etc especially right after a new model/design is released...

For example my Yeti ASR SL (dated I know for some since it is not 29er ) was bought in 2010

Frame and Fox fork (1300.00) from Jenson
Wheelset 500.00 for a Easton EAXC90, had a 600.00 set of Mavic Crossmax SLRs...both sets bought around 50% off from Nashbar...(100.00) for tires
Drivetrain SRAM XO rear derailleur and shifters (350.00) with XTR Crank and front derailleur (450.00) AVID ultimate brakes (350.00)...cables 100.00...chris king headset (100.00)...thomson post (70.00)...specialized seat (100.00)...stem and handlebar (200.00)...grips (20.00)...misc (100.00) for chains/tubeless

I total 3820.00 which when I bought my frame and fork would have not even bought me the xt equipped model directly from Yeti...I would have been pushing 5000.00 for the XTR spec...

I do agree though that old frames are not worth resurrecting...

 

[Christophe Noel]

Boy, this thread is a quagmire of funky information.

For starters, most newer frames at the entry to intermediate level will almost always be hydroformed aluminum. This includes all complete bikes from about $600 to $2500. Hydroformed aluminum is pretty much the standard. There are a few steel offerings in this price range from Niner, Surly, Jamis and maybe a few others, but Hydroformed aluminum owns the sub $2500 mark. Above that you get into carbon and high-zoot steel and ti.

Secondly, rim brakes are not just dead, they've been embalmed, buried, mourned and now forgotten. Only complete bikes sub $600 will have rim brakes, and boy do they suck.

Flagster tipped onto a great point. The more expensive the bike, the more to be saved with the hunt for cheap parts to build with. However, you better have a very good idea what you want and what you need. In my 25 years in the business, I've seen some fun-kee builds with the weirdest mish-mash of parts ever. The advantage to buying complete is you get a bike with a well balance spec of parts.

Right now, the bike world is flush with closeout bikes. I get closeout lists from our bike reps every few weeks. Good deals abound.

 

[Flagster]

The advantage to buying complete is you get a bike with a well balance spec of parts.

And manufacturers know where to add value and where to cut cost...for example you likely won't get an XT or XTR level cassette even with parts of the drivetrain that level...rear derailleur adds bling factor and useful upgrade but chain/front derailleur are usually downgraded and seatpost/saddle/bars/stem are usually proprietary...Not that it matters as I find there is usually only miniscule increases in performance and functionality when you go from say LX-XTR. I was amazed when I was working on my GFs road bike that the SRAM rival seems to work as well or better than my RED....no bling but plenty of go...and she is faster than me anyway so I need something

 

[Klierslc]

http://www.brodiebikes.com/2013/online_store/factory_clearance_frames.php

Some pretty decent buys on Brodie frames in their closeout section....

 

[p nut]

And manufacturers know where to add value and where to cut cost...

Mostly for monetary gains, not performance. (they are a business afterall) In my experience, anyway.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Mostly for monetary gains, not performance. (they are a business afterall) In my experience, anyway.

You make that sound nefarious. When a manufacturer is designing the parts spec for a particular model, they're simply doing what they need to do to meet certain price points. This is why it seems every brand has similarly equiped bikes at similarly set priced points. And really, does it matter if your XT bike has an SLX front derailleur or cassette? Performance wise, no.


At any rate, those parts spec allocations don't just trim costs for the manufacturer, they supress costs at retail for the consumer.

 

[goodtimes]

You make that sound nefarious. When a manufacturer is designing the parts spec for a particular model, they're simply doing what they need to do to meet certain price points. This is why it seems every brand has similarly equiped bikes at similarly set priced points. And really, does it matter if your XT bike has an SLX front derailleur or cassette? Performance wise, no.


At any rate, those parts spec allocations don't just trim costs for the manufacturer, they suppress costs at retail for the consumer.

To further that thought - lets not forget that a $1,300 off-the-shelf bike will out perform almost every rider out there. It's not like many of us are out there racing or casually putting down 2,500 mile years. Honestly, look at the level/intensity/frequency that most of us ride at - it's a pretty low bar for manufacturers to clear.

 

[p nut]

You make that sound nefarious. When a manufacturer is designing the parts spec for a particular model, they're simply doing what they need to do to meet certain price points. This is why it seems every brand has similarly equiped bikes at similarly set priced points. And really, does it matter if your XT bike has an SLX front derailleur or cassette? Performance wise, no.

Certainly not trying to make them (bike companies) sound sleezy (although I guess that could be argued). All I was pointing out was the reason companies spec the bike the way they do is driven by business gains, not for "better balancing out component specs". My old 98 Gary Fisher Big Sur was spec'ed with an STX front derailleur and an XT rear. Why? While I'm sure the XT performed slightly better than an LX, it was so that it allowed them to highlight "XT components" for an $800 bike (I think that's how much I paid) on their brochure. Personally, I would rather have had them put an LX rear on, and upgrade the crappy $5 headset. While this may not be applicable when you start getting higher up in the $3,000+ price range, any mid-level bikes I've seen were more-or-less the same.

...At any rate, those parts spec allocations don't just trim costs for the manufacturer, they supress costs at retail for the consumer.

Only to stay in competition, right? They're not out to cut costs just to cut costs out of the goodness of their hearts. They're a business and will be run as such. Nothing wrong with that--we've all gotta eat and play. But keep in mind, they're not saints--they're all businessmen.

 

[p nut]

To further that thought - lets not forget that a $1,300 off-the-shelf bike will out perform almost every rider out there. It's not like many of us are out there racing or casually putting down 2,500 mile years. Honestly, look at the level/intensity/frequency that most of us ride at - it's a pretty low bar for manufacturers to clear.

You're probably right. But I guess I've turned into a snob and looking at a $1,300 bike (like this Trek Cobia ), I can't help turn my nose at the mix of what I consider crap components on a bike that weights probably over 30lbs. That's my personal issues, though.

BTW, I consider myself an average rider at an average fitness level. With a fam of 4, I still do 3-4k miles per year (half of it is road, though). I know some of you go 2 to 3 times that, which I'm really jealous of.

 

[Christophe Noel]

P nut, I think you are confused with how the bike industry really works with regard to setting parts spec and the corresponding retail prices. The parts spec is not set to increase profits. That's silly. They make the same margin whether they spec a bike with XT, SLX, or what ever. The parts spec drives the retail price.

So, a particular brand may spec a bike with various parts simply to hit a targeted retail price. As an example, if the average price across the board for an XT equipped aluminum hard tail is $2000, it may not be wise to throw a bunch of carbon bits on a bike that works out to be $2200 in that category. It looks like a poor value. So, the manufacturer will spec that bike with lesser expensive bar, stem, what ever, and get it back to the "price point" that's like everyone else - $2000. In essence, a $2000 with normal spec, and a $2200 with better spec, are a similar value, or "profit" to the manufacturer. However, consumers tend to not always understand the nuance of bike spec and simply see the $2200 bike as more expensive. It is, but not a lesser value.

Again, they make the same margin whether that bike has better or worse spec than similar bikes in the price point.

Brian, industry stats show that most riders who consider themselves enthusiast cyclists ride between 1,800 and 3,000 miles. They also ride bikes between $1500 and $4000. Most riders that consider themselves expert or avid riders double those numbers. I put in just a shade under 6700 miles in 2012.

 

[Flagster]

It is funny that for the past 30 years of my bike riding...a graph of my miles and my perceived ability as a rider would look like a linear x=y
while the price of the bikes I ride look like a bell curve...

 

[Christophe Noel]

I wish I could find the survey I found a couple years ago. It was really interesting, if not a little funny. The take away was this - riders surveyed categorized themselves as beginner, enthusiast and expert/avid riders based on a number of metrics. Based on miles, the majority of the riders surveyed fell into the beginner, enthusiast categories. Based on how much money they spent on bikes, they fell into enthusiast and expert categories.

So, it's not how much you ride, it's how much you spend.

 

[goodtimes]

Brian, industry stats show that most riders who consider themselves enthusiast cyclists ride between 1,800 and 3,000 miles. They also ride bikes between $1500 and $4000.

I certainly don't have any market data to back up my gut feeling - only what I see and hear from other riders I meet on the trail. My guess is that those market statistics are skewed. It would be interesting to see the breakdown between mountain bikes and road bikes. 1800 miles per year is 35 miles per week (for 52 weeks) - not that much for a road bike, but probably far more than the average "enthusiast" mountain bike rider puts down.

I wish I could find the survey I found a couple years ago. It was really interesting, if not a little funny. The take away was this - riders surveyed categorized themselves as beginner, enthusiast and expert/avid riders based on a number of metrics. Based on miles, the majority of the riders surveyed fell into the beginner, enthusiast categories. Based on how much money they spent on bikes, they fell into enthusiast and expert categories.

That wouldn't surprise me at all - & I bet you could draw some pretty tight parallels with a variety of other hobbies/activities. Those with the highest "tool to experience ratio" are often those that are new to the sport (so to speak). I know I tend to buy into a level that is above my ability based on the idea that it will give me room to grow into [insert new activity/hobby/sport here] without further significant investment. I'm sure others do the same. A wise man once said: Buy the best, cry once.