bike shopping, part 1 of many

Feb 17, 2008 18:44

I'm pretty sure I should not buy a $1500 bike that will want another $1-200 worth of components to make it perfect. Right ( Read more... )

wtf, squee, cycling

Leave a comment

agate456 February 18 2008, 05:26:31 UTC
Is it kind of sad that I would spend at least that much on just a frame?

Speaking of which, have you thought about just building up the bike that you really want? It's not that hard, and I can help.

Reply

adularia February 18 2008, 05:41:41 UTC
I have thought about it. A coworker pointed me at R+E Cycles in the U-district as an excellent custom framebuilder. Especially if I had help selecting components, I might go that route.

I think (just for shopping-around purposes) I want to find at least 1 other stock bike that I'd consider buying, and if I can't find any other and I decide against the Trek, that's where I'm at.

Reply

northernflights February 18 2008, 05:57:26 UTC
I'd tend to agree with agate456 -- if you really want to drop more than a grand on a bike, you'd better make sure that it's perfect for your needs and tastes. (After all, you can get a very functional yet imperfect bike for well under $500, but you've already decided that you want something else entirely...)

Reply

adularia February 18 2008, 06:17:55 UTC
I am feeling very, very wary of "functional yet imperfect"; it's clashing badly with my remaining personal ethos around making do and buying cheap. I don't want to go through that all that crap again.

Reply

northernflights February 18 2008, 18:31:53 UTC
That's kind of what I figured... so, indeed, my vote is squarely against the Trek and in favor of something more along the lines of R&E Cycles, Ti Cycles, etc. (and one hell of a lock.)

Reply

adularia February 18 2008, 18:46:33 UTC
This is probably where I should admit that I looked more closely at the R+E website last night, and... um. Lust. I think I'm going up there soon.

I'm annoyed with myself for wibbling on $1500 for being too pricey, but turning around and lusting after a a $3000 bike.

but if it's the Right Thing, and I can afford it...

you know where this is going, I trust.

Reply

northernflights February 18 2008, 19:10:32 UTC
Yep.

Along somewhat similar lines: once upon a time, in 2003 or 2004, I bought a $200 made-in-China folding bike to take flying with me. It was functional but imperfect: too heavy at 40 pounds, with a cheap shifter and derailleur that loved to drop the chain no matter how it was adjusted, and -- wait for it -- weekly flat tires when riding on gravel, which is of course what I was riding on throughout Summer 2004. Still, it worked better than nothing, and who knows? For someone who only rode once a week for a couple miles on pavement, it might have been perfect.

So, at the moment, I don't own a bike that fits in my airplane... but if I ever do buy another, it will be the best. Bike Friday, that is: made in Eugene, and reputed to ride as well as a first-rate non-folding bike.

The way your story is headed, I think you're cruising for a made-in-Seattle bike.

Cheers!

Reply

adularia February 18 2008, 19:40:13 UTC
I think you're probably right.

Eeek.

Oh, I talked recently to someone at Counterbalance Cycles. He said Ti went out of business and Counterbalance is taking over the space with a second store. :/

(I have nothing against Counterbalance precisely, though the LQA store seems to specialize in fixies for tall skinny hipster guys, so are Not My Type.)

Reply

adularia February 18 2008, 20:01:01 UTC
On locks... do you have an opinion?

I know dymaxion uses the mini U-lock+insulated steel cable approach, which is clearly better than my one large U-lock because she can lock both wheels around a tree.

Thoughts?

Reply

northernflights February 18 2008, 20:03:45 UTC
I do the same: U-lock plus insulated steel cable. That way, I can secure the other wheel and even the seat.

Reply

randomdreams February 18 2008, 20:42:36 UTC
Take a look at the folding version of the Slingshot -- those things ride well enough to be competitive in mountain bike races (back when alternative frame geometries were allowed) and fit easily in the back of a 152, can be coaxed into a 172.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up