crap bikes - discuss...

[Buzzsaw]

Nothing wrong with crap bikes - years ago when I was young and silly (well not all things have changed) and travelling the world I bought a "crap" hi-ten steel frame 18 speed mountain bike for 50 US bucks at the local bike shop in Western China and rode the tank across the Karakorum Highway to Pakistan - one of the highest motorable roads in the world with altitude of 4000 metres plus. Look it up on the internet. The brakes were naff and weighed a ton but it carried my junk without a single problem and then sold it over the border in a village for a profit! The bloke was happy as Larry as he thought it was the bee's knees.

 

[Buzzsaw]

Nothing wrong with crap bikes - years ago when I was young and silly (well not all things have changed) and travelling the world I bought a "crap" hi-ten steel frame 18 speed mountain bike for 50 US bucks at the local bike shop in Western China and rode the tank across the Karakorum Highway to Pakistan - one of the highest motorable roads in the world with altitude of 4000 metres plus. Look it up on the internet. The brakes were naff and weighed a ton but it carried my junk without a single problem and then sold it over the border in a village for a profit! The bloke was happy as Larry as he thought it was the bee's knees.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Raleigh DynaTech. It is crap because the tube popped out of it's socket after going down a short steep slope. That made it crap then.
Then with reports of it happening to others (other have mentioned it on here) that in my book makes it even crapper.
Any bike that falls apart trying to kill its rider is crap.

 

[Neil]

Personally, anything that was not the high-end of any certain brand, except if we talk of very special bikes, is crap. It was crap back in those years, you would buy a Marin Muirwoods because you couldn't afford a Marin Team Marin

I disagree with the thrust of that.

The first real mountain bike I bought with my own money, was not a bottom-of-the-range entry level bike, nor was it top-of-the-range team equipment. I pitched it at about the right level to match my commitment and ability as a cyclist / mountain biker.

It cost me somewhere approaching £600 in 91 (for some reason £567 sticks in my memory), and was thoroughly decent, albeit modest and unpretentious. It served me well for some years, and I was absolutely gutted when it got nicked. During the time I owned and rode it, I had no serious intentions of upgrading to a better bike. I may have swapped out parts, here and there, as and when they either wore out, or I had a wild hair.

 

[legrandefromage]

Clearly some of you have actually read the opening post and some you have an axe to grind.

My first bike back in the dim and distant was a 5spd BSO mountain bike esque with side pull brakes. My then parents had saved up a lot of money for it but it was worn out within a few months. I have no fond memories of that bike as every journey was a chore.

 

[Neil]

Are they crap if they keep people riding? I mean it's a bike..two wheels, it's not a ferrari

As a purists hobby I can see why some elitism exists but sometimes I question wether it is about bikes actually being crap or as we get older we forget the fun we had on them "crap bikes"?

I think some don't want to think about what they had originally - not purely because they were objectively crap bikes, but because they don't, now, align with their rhetoric.

Yes, things evolve, as does taste, but to condemn some things that were thoroughly decent, yet no more, is revisionist - and I suspect if we had the luxury of time-travel, asking people what they thought about some bikes, whilst enjoying them BITD, would reveal poignantly different opinions, than evolved or "cultured" tastes have made them biased, today.

 

[Conde Pyruslav]

Personally, anything that was not the high-end of any certain brand, except if we talk of very special bikes, is crap. It was crap back in those years, you would buy a Marin Muirwoods because you couldn't afford a Marin Team Marin

I disagree with the thrust of that.

The first real mountain bike I bought with my own money, was not a bottom-of-the-range entry level bike, nor was it top-of-the-range team equipment. I pitched it at about the right level to match my commitment and ability as a cyclist / mountain biker.

It cost me somewhere approaching £600 in 91 (for some reason £567 sticks in my memory), and was thoroughly decent, albeit modest and unpretentious. It served me well for some years, and I was absolutely gutted when it got nicked. During the time I owned and rode it, I had no serious intentions of upgrading to a better bike. I may have swapped out parts, here and there, as and when they either wore out, or I had a wild hair.

Totally agree with you.

Now, 21 years later and talking about "classic bikes" or "retro bike", that bicycle is as special as a 21yo Electrolux oven. You will have to wait another 21 years and pray to the Lord of the 26" wheels that somebody will wake up in the morning and say "yes, I think I would like a 42 yo middle range bicycle".



That's how I see it.

 

[Neil]

This really annoys me, we get newbies on here with bikes that some peeps just jump in with straight away " yeah your bikes crap". How about we offer some gentle advice it wont take long for them to see they could get a much better bike for not a lot of money. No insted we get some a-hole shooting them down. Surely this place is supposed to be about the fun and joy of biking in all its flavours. When I started on here I had a bike of dubious quality fortunatley i made friends with some decent folk on here who helped me up my standard of bike, and I have been lucky with some finds. I try to help the newbies out point them in the right way gently point out the shortcomings of their bike.

Or are we going to start a door policy, sorry mate not with that bike.

I think I see some of both sides to this - it's like some people sit there as if everything must match their approval.

On the other hand, whilst I may sentimentally love the pink-y, purple-y Raleigh Mustang I got in 88 - and it most certainly was and is cool - it was not a good bike. I'm not quite sure it falls quite so hard on the BSO / crap bike label - in that if nothing else, it didn't break, things could be adjusted on it, and they did actually work.

But it wasn't a real MTB, it was made out of plain gauge, high tensile steel, the dropouts actually hurt your eyes with their ugliness, the wheels were chromed steel, and the thing was little better than ballast.

All the same, it was the start and actually formed happy memories, got upgraded (not ridiculously - no XT was harmed during the production...), and has a special place in my memory box (although regrettably I don't believe any photos exist, so when mad cow completely ravages my memory, it will have never existed).

I get the whole "crap is crap" perspective - I also get that retrobikes are far from being all about objectivity - they are decidedly about subjectivity, nostalgia, and happy memories. I also think there's no sense in an almost junta-esque perspective that some feel they must foist their perception of excellence or decency - if nothing else, from general perspective, such quibbling about "crap" is as uncool (from a "normal" person's perspective) as the crap they wish to pillory.

 

[legrandefromage]

Its nothing to do with snobbery, crap bikes are just crap, they were crap then and are still crap now and no matter how you dress them up, crap they shall remain.

crap.

So what makes a crap bike then? Design? Function? Materials?


Then we get to the budget end of cycling - the really crappy stuff that Tesco sells, I'll leave. Its well documented that they are just not good at all - plastic components that are difficult to use, poor frame geometry etc etc.

So what of the in between? Those bikes that we saved ages for or that our parents thought that we'd grow into? Whats your worst memory and your best?

I took my first 200GS iron clad all over the place but it was awful, no rose tinted could make it better, but I loved it. Then I wanted more and moved up the ladder - yet, 'crap' bikes still came along - A Claud Butler that tore its rear canti mount clean off, non replaceable mech hangers snapping like twigs on expensive frames, the uber expensive Cannondale that simply didnt work as a bike, cracks in rear triangles, exploding shocks, all culminating in a hit list of crap bikes...

Aaaaghhh...!

Then there was Retrobike... all was calm... Then there was accusations of inverted snobbery, then snobbery, then any passing comment caused a riot just because someone had one back in the day etc etc - calm down dears!

Anyway, expunge yourselves here without fear! Name your crap bikes and why...

 

[Neil]

Personally, anything that was not the high-end of any certain brand, except if we talk of very special bikes, is crap. It was crap back in those years, you would buy a Marin Muirwoods because you couldn't afford a Marin Team Marin

I disagree with the thrust of that.

The first real mountain bike I bought with my own money, was not a bottom-of-the-range entry level bike, nor was it top-of-the-range team equipment. I pitched it at about the right level to match my commitment and ability as a cyclist / mountain biker.

It cost me somewhere approaching £600 in 91 (for some reason £567 sticks in my memory), and was thoroughly decent, albeit modest and unpretentious. It served me well for some years, and I was absolutely gutted when it got nicked. During the time I owned and rode it, I had no serious intentions of upgrading to a better bike. I may have swapped out parts, here and there, as and when they either wore out, or I had a wild hair.

Totally agree with you.

Now, 21 years later and talking about "classic bikes" or "retro bike", that bicycle is as special as a 21yo Electrolux oven. You will have to wait another 21 years and pray to the Lord of the 26" wheels that somebody will wake up in the morning and say "yes, I think I would like a 42 yo middle range bicycle".



That's how I see it.

I see there are different interests or perspectives in this place. For some, it's all about the excellence and very best from the retro era - and every strength to them.

For others, it's about bikes in general from that era, that evoke memories or nostalgia.

Some just come here when they've uncovered an old bike and wonder whether it's worth something.

And some come here with an old, and pretty awful bike, and expect their happy memories of something whether worthy or worthless, to be universally loved.

All the same, I think it's a flaw to assume that those that either didn't then, or don't now, have or want high-end kit, are simply in denial or can't yet afford. For myself, I was never drawn to bikes or kit that was top-end or exotica, because it was incongruous with my abilities or commitment.

That's much the same now - but for additional reasons - I'm drawn to the bikes from my favourite era, that evoke memories - some of them aren't all of my own bikes, they may be like bikes of friends, or merely evocative of the types of bikes that I and others that I knew rode back then.