The Cheap and Nasty
- Thread starter twain
- Start date
About 12 years ago I bought a BSO from a bike shop, not a flatpack bike as it was assembled by the bike shop, it cost £150 and I used to take it on the mountain bike track, in the town I lived in, doing small jumps on it too, I was very suprised at how resilient it was and how much punishment it could take. On the whole though I definately think spending the money on a decent second hand retro build is a far better investment.
TBH I don't really see many of them out on the trails! I'm more likely to see a retrobike than a BSO. Sure maybe some low end stuff but all would fall into the proper mtb category. If I do see a BSO its more than likely doddering about the street with either a pensioner or ned aboard, which they seem to cope with.
NAILTRAIL96
Senior Retro Guru
You'd be suprised just how tough some of these bikes can be, 20 years ago people talked the same way about generic korean made cars, now they have the best warranties on the market.twain":14oab4x7 said:
I'd rather see people out riding rubbish bikes than not out at all, I'd rather be out riding rubbish than not out at all.
Oh.
No pics of Jordan yet then?
OK here we go...
No pics of Jordan yet then?
OK here we go...
twain":26bn6tqt said:
I do agree, but to be honest I'm more concerned that people go 'ooooh a Zaskar' when I wheel it in to work and see it for the glory that it is. They don't. They wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a £100 triple clamp BSO and my GT if I slapped them round the head with either.
Which is tempting, sometimes.
Carlos
Old School Hero
I've been thinking about this recently - what makes a bike 'appear' quality?
I do believe pretty much anyone on this planet would pick out an XTR Zaskar (to use your example) as the quality bike over a £100 BSO just by looking at it.
But I can't work out why!
Is it just the shinyness of bits? The neatness of the way it's put together? Some knowledge of what parts are better than others (I think most people would 'know' than discs are better and more expensive than calipers)?
After browsing a few ebay auctions and listing sites recently, I can tell by a tiny tiny thumbnail what the quality of the bike is. I'm not sure whether that's years of experience telling me that or a natural instinct. I really couldn't tell you exactly what stands out that shouts 'crap' or 'quality', just that something does!
I do believe pretty much anyone on this planet would pick out an XTR Zaskar (to use your example) as the quality bike over a £100 BSO just by looking at it.
But I can't work out why!
Is it just the shinyness of bits? The neatness of the way it's put together? Some knowledge of what parts are better than others (I think most people would 'know' than discs are better and more expensive than calipers)?
After browsing a few ebay auctions and listing sites recently, I can tell by a tiny tiny thumbnail what the quality of the bike is. I'm not sure whether that's years of experience telling me that or a natural instinct. I really couldn't tell you exactly what stands out that shouts 'crap' or 'quality', just that something does!
velomaniac
MacRetro Rider
I once took an Integra Phantom down the red graded XC course at Innerleithen. I did fit some slightly better RST forks and some Shimano Tourney grade components to civilize it a wee bit. It was heavy going up which is understandable but it worked pretty well going down when I caught and overhauled a group on £1500 full sussers and left them eating my dust. My speed may have also been due to my not great brakes 
BSO's are nasty no arguement, but its not what you ride but how you ride it that counts ultimately
BSO's are nasty no arguement, but its not what you ride but how you ride it that counts ultimately
