Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:06 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:30 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:18 pm
Posts: 3186
Location: NFA
kaiser wrote:
Although good frame crap components does have its merits.


Yep.. Back in 1997 I bought a P7 Alivio as I couldnt afford a better group but wanted a good frame...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:44 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 8436
Location: Oh Canada!
i wouldn't consider any "frame only" bike built up with mid-range parts as a valid entry in this months BOTM. neither would i consider any bike which would have been purchased built up with high-end components BITD, but now built up with mid-range parts a mid-range bike entry.

i do agree with no better than LX parts on the bike as mid-range.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:48 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:28 pm
Posts: 4179
Location: rutland
lavadome


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:50 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:18 pm
Posts: 3186
Location: NFA
Any GT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:03 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:11 pm
Posts: 8700
Location: DUNDEE
Mid range for me was always price thing based on the average selling prices of bikes: cheap bikes are up to 300 new, mid range is 300 - 800 new - and anything else is high end.

This pretty much applied in the mid 90s as it does now as bike price ranges have not changed a great deal in 15 years.

This might sound bonkers to some, but it works for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:04 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 10945
Location: kent
Rockhopper is mid range .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:09 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:35 pm
Posts: 5804
Location: Dunkeswell, Nr Honiton, Devon
fingers wrote:
Any GT.



Meeeeoooowwwww!!!! :D :D :D :D

Anything that was at the top end of your paper-round savings - but around 500 quid is what MBUK would have classed it as.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:15 pm 
Devout Dirtbag

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:16 pm
Posts: 133
Location: Nottingham
John, I'm definitely miserable and I clearly didn't articulate my thoughts terribly well.
Wasn't after an arguement I was just trying to show my support for bikes with components from lower down the Shimano range. :roll:

Knew I should have kept quiet on this subject :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:21 pm 
BoTM | rBoTY Winner
BoTM | rBoTY Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 am
Posts: 791
Location: Singapore
So, what do you call a nice frame that was a rider for decades, but which was built up with mid-level components? I think a lot of the definitions here beg the question. Taking a top end frame and outfitting it with work horse parts is a popular method of getting the ride qualities that you want without breaking the bank. The resulting bike certainly isn't high-end because, by design, the build has been set up to be cost-conscious. After that it becomes more quibbling. The Merlin is unusual because it was a boutique frame, but the fact is, that the owner built it as a rider and did ride it until I bought it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:22 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:18 pm
Posts: 3186
Location: NFA
mattbrown wrote:
fingers wrote:
Any GT.



Meeeeoooowwwww!!!! :D :D :D :D

Anything that was at the top end of your paper-round savings - but around 500 quid is what MBUK would have classed it as.


I have one me'self sir...

BITD MBUK 1996 buyers guide (IIRC) had the cindercone as the ultimate budgeteer bike - quality, as much as one really needs, and sensible upgrades... All from the offing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chrisv40, DynaCol, jimo746, k-rod, nbcord, Tc, yakboy, youngsspeed and 69 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group