Why Don't I like the 'good' bikes?

[silverclaws]

Halfords, halfrauds was not always shite, it did have a better time, in fact my first ever bikes came from Halfords back in the 1970's a Bluemels something or other which got me into the love of bikes and cycling.

Halfords actually started as a cycling store back in 1892 as Halfords Cycle Company Limited. But just as with everything in the business world things get bought and sold and with that ideals suffer.

Early nineties, Halfords sold Saracen and Raleigh, I remember that is where I first found my love for Saracen, looking at the Killis , e-stays and hydrotechs, that would have been 1991. I did intend getting a Saracen from there, but instead happened upon a shop, Conquest Cycles which was going into liquidation and there I got a cash deal, a £800 bike for £400, a lot to me those days, in fact still is, and what a beautiful bike it was, Shiny, black and silver and light compared to my pal's bikes, I started with XT and it lasted without fault for the thirteen years I had the bike and there my interest in Deore XT 2, it from a longevity and versatility perspective.

 

[heartbreaker]

Grown men arguing about bikes.....classic

I'm embarressed I got involved with comments my self...Its a bike for f**k sake.

take your bike out what ever it is and give it some stick, have a pint or a cuppa

Thats what its all about, less talking more riding

I'm off to get muddy!

 

[sylus]

Grown men arguing about bikes.....classic

I'm embarressed I got involved with comments my self...Its a bike for f**k sake.

take your bike out what ever it is and give it some stick, have a pint or a cuppa

Thats what its all about, less talking more riding

I'm off to get muddy!

Which is kinda my drift heart

we are all here because we love retros, so helping others out and not putting them down because of the choice they have made on a bike seems a bit silly and less of a community but more of a two stage relationship

there are some that ride and some that collect and some that do both..the price of what they spend should never be the deciding factor on wether thier input is valid or not

 

[john]

What you and a lot of people seem to confuse is the difference between good bikes and expensive bikes (even John made that mistake in his earlier comment)

No mistake made. I highlighted two groups on here to illustrate a point - much have you have highlighted four groups. Your attempt to split the site into groups is interesting, if only for the fact that for every one person who sits neatly in a pigeon hole there's another who will sit in more than one group (although you've of course partially conceded this point).

I see people on both sides of this debate tossing in poorly thought out (or is that well crafted) one line comments often including smileys which often detract from any discussion. I would contend it's not just the Mustang lovers who are stoking this particular fire.

I find myself looking dreamily at lavadomes and clockworks. If anyone has a Rocklobster lying around, let me know.

This is from the original poster and has somewhat been lost in the debate. Clockworks, lavadomes or rock lobsters (of preston of course) are not bad bikes by any means. One would probably say they were 'good bikes' although not expensive ones in the scale of things.

 

[john]

Retrobike is indeed a broad church. Much as there is no place for snobbery there is also no place for inverted snobbery. If someone wants to spend every waking hour and every last penny building the rarest of the rare and hang it on a wall that is fine. If someone wants to spend significantly less on a 20 year old raleigh and ride the hell out of it that's also fine.

Cheers John. I'll be quoting your words the next time I'm told that a Saracen Sahara is "shite".

But really, have you ever been told that?

 

[pete_mcc]

No mistake made.

Fair point made and taken, I just want to get away from the 'cheap expensive' debate, and back on to the 'good bad' debate. Retrobike may be a broad church but it should also be one that recognises and celebrates excellence, at any cost. The OP made the mistake of saying he doesn't do 'good' bikes' yet blatantly confused that with expensive bikes. You commented that there are those 'who spend every last penny' and those that 'spend considerably less', seemingly confusing the cost/quality issue too and thats where the cause of my comment lay.

And LGF, that Fox is just so wrong you should have posted a warning, although in the snow it will enable the emergency services to find you when you crack your knackers on that high top tube!

 

[pete_mcc]

Grown men arguing about bikes.....classic

I'm embarressed I got involved with comments my self...Its a bike for f**k sake.

!

The arguments are indicative of the passion that some people have about these bikes in much the same way that people argue about football, or cars or politics. If this place had no arguments that it would be a poorer, vanilla flavoured pixieland filled with drab builds and smoke-blowers. As it is we have competition like BOTM which drives people to build beautiful bikes, or races like OWMTBC that drive people to race the things.

Embrace the passion and post your comments with an open mind, it may just be a bike to you but it's a hobby, a sport and a passion to many others.

 

[BoyBurning]

So, just to summarise, are we all then agreed that a Saracen Sahara is a shite bike?

Goodo.

BB

 

[legrandefromage]

So, just to summarise, are we all then agreed that a Saracen Sahara is a shite bike?

Goodo.

BB

No, its heart is a reasonable frame and it can be built into something usable with minimum effort:

 

[BoyBurning]

So, just to summarise, are we all then agreed that a Saracen Sahara is a shite bike?

Goodo.

BB

No, its heart is a reasonable frame and it can be built into something usable with minimum effort:

But that's just a shite frame with nice aftermarket forks isn't it?

BB