Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Are cheaper bikes better for us

Well, within reason of course and talking about stock equipment for bikes.
Why I ask if because more expensive bikes look to be designed to be lighter possibly decreasing the load they can take. The best example are probably wheels, in general when you get more expensive, you get less spokes. Other components are also lighter.

Me, I'm consider a new bike - well I always am and always have a wish list. But I'm someone who just wants to buy something that works off the shelf, I just want it to work. I don't mind replacing something if it breaks or I find it just doesn't work for me. But I'd rather not have to fiddle with components too much otherwise.

So, is it possible that cheaper stock bikes can actually be better?
Or would you put a weight limit of any stock bike, whether entry level or carbon feather?

I don't think it's really about cheaper vs really expensive. Most frame sets out there will work for most of us. What starts determining and driving price is more a testament of components and wheel sets. Of course branding plays a part as well.

It's really easy to get caught up in upgrades and baling factor when in reality most entry level component groups will meet any need a recreational rider needs. Our requirement is the wheel set, which can drive cost up a bit.

Not so sure cheap is durable. I bought a $1000 roadie. Fo one thing, it too was eqipped with low spoke count wheels. I knew that going into th prchase as I had already built wheels for the bike. Soaked it for whatever miles I could get out of the wheels.

I thought cheap was beter but he aluminum frame snapped at the BB area. I figured heavier at this level wa better than the heger end stuff. I was wrong. I think it's mreo abot finding a bike with a beefy BB area for us clydes. MFR replaced the frame free of charge wiht an upgraded frame. Partial carbon and some aluminum. Although I like the bike fit, still the new frame is flexy in the wrong area. Whether it's the low end or th high end, I'm looking for a beefy BB area next time around. I have an older roadie (Cannondale) with a beefy BB area with no problems at all.

As far as lowend stock components being stronger? I don't think so. Again Ultegra crank on the Old roadie, no problems after 10 years. The new roadie has Bontrager crank. After 15,000 its' toast. I will go atleast 105 but more than likely Ultegra since the price is about the same.

As far as a cheaper bike, yes if it's 105 stuff. But not too low end like low end house components (eg Bontrager and other house brands):D

I've seen lots of big guys tear up an X-Mart bike in very little time over the years. I did. It was a mountain bike with a stiff front end. Spokes started popping in the first week, and I eventually gave up on replacing parts on it a few months, and another $400 - $500 later.

If price, and fear of tearing something up that you paid so much for, is an issue; then I would go for a used late 1990s or newer bike. You can get one really cheap, and it should last a lot longer than a bike that is made cheap. My opinion.

YOU + YOUR BIKE + YOUR EQUPIMENT

30 lb bike: (200 + 30 + 5) = 235 LB
20 lb bike: (200 + 20 + 5) = 225 LB

Dropping 4.5% of your total weight is worth what to you?

Better parts (Phil Wood), or a custom built steel frame might get you more miles for a given amount of effort pedaling. If big $ are involved a Rohloff hub would be nice.

Heavier doesn't equal stronger. There's a reason that an xmart bike is $100.

Well, within reason of course and talking about stock equipment for bikes.
Why I ask if because more expensive bikes look to be designed to be lighter possibly decreasing the load they can take. The best example are probably wheels, in general when you get more expensive, you get less spokes. Other components are also lighter.

Me, I'm consider a new bike - well I always am and always have a wish list. But I'm someone who just wants to buy something that works off the shelf, I just want it to work. I don't mind replacing something if it breaks or I find it just doesn't work for me. But I'd rather not have to fiddle with components too much otherwise.

So, is it possible that cheaper stock bikes can actually be better?
Or would you put a weight limit of any stock bike, whether entry level or carbon feather?

Think about it from the manufacturers stand point, there is considerable "bling" factor to the most expensive lines, but it's here that they can use the most expensive materials and most expensive manufacturing methods, and the highest quality control. You also have the cheapest lines, here you have bicycle manufacturers wanting to have parts for a bicycle where the end unit price is low, and margins are sometimes razor thin, You have to be able to make a lot of units cheap. You do this by using cheap materials, cheap manufacturing methods, you don't care if it makes the bicycle heavier, and doesn't work as well.

Take for example a crank set, the cheap one is stamped out of low grade steel, then primed and painted with ordinary paint. The spider and right crank are swagged together, the rings are riveted on, who cares if the set weighs a lot, it's cheap and allows the bicycle builder to make millions of bicycles they can sell at Wallywart for $99 each, the crank, in fact the whole bicycle is disposable. When something breaks, you buy another bicycle, it's too cheap to fix. The expensive one is forged from expensive aluminum alloys, the spider and right crank are made in a single piece, you use an expensive epoxy finish, the rings are Titanium, and bolted on, it's a fine piece of engineering, and it's very light, but actually stronger then the cheap one. If the rings wear out, they are replaceable, the issue is that one replacement ring costs $99. Then again the entire expensive unit weighs less then one ring on the cheap one.

We really don't want either, we want the sweet spot, where it's strong enough, light enough, yet still reasonably priced. For complete new road bicycles this is probably in the $1000 - $1500 range. maybe $600 to $1100 for mountain and hybrid bicycles.

Ahh I should have explained further.
I didn't even think about the Xmart bikes anymore.
I am talking about the difference between say the cheapest Trek 1.2 compared to a 1.9 or one of the Madones.

On a different note, I just discovered the Zipp have a 'Clydesdale' range.

Ahh I should have explained further.
I didn't even think about the Xmart bikes anymore.
I am talking about the difference between say the cheapest Trek 1.2 compared to a 1.9 or one of the Madones.

On a different note, I just discovered the Zipp have a 'Clydesdale' range.

My earlier response was based on your assumptions above. From a frame point of view, I don't think you will notice a significant difference, with the exception of the price point where you jump from a steel/aluminum fork to a CF fork. Of course, hitting the full CF price point changes the discussion completely.

After that, most will come down to wheels and components. Once you reach a 105 equipped bike your price differences will begin to reflect a difference in component weigh more so than performance. Ultegra is the point where the diminishing returns really hit home. With Campy, I would say that Centaur is the big diminishing return point, with Chorus and Record/Super Record starting to get crazy in pricing.

In my mind, Veloce=105, Centaur=Ultegra, and then it starts to get into just silly money that unless you are a Cat 2 just doesn't make sense unless you just want it.

Truthfully, a Sora/Integra equipped bike is fine and dandy for a recreational non racer in my opinion. For a Clyde, my only two knocks on Sora is the shifters don't work as well under the heavy torque which we can lay down. This mostly while climbing though, and can be compensated for with timing and not shifting while pedaling. The other thing I don't like about Sora is the front dérailleur. It just doesn't seem to trim out as well and needs adjustment a bit more often than I care for.

If I were to offer advice that took any bling factor at all out of the equation, I would recommend a bike with an Integra group as the best bang for the buck. The extra money that would be spent getting up to 105 is, in my mind, better spent on wheels.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have a bike jar I stick a few pennies in every now and then that completely ignores everything I have stated about value and bang for the buck, lol.

My earlier response was based on your assumptions above. From a frame point of view, I don't think you will notice a significant difference, with the exception of the price point where you jump from a steel/aluminum fork to a CF fork. Of course, hitting the full CF price point changes the discussion completely.

After that, most will come down to wheels and components. Once you reach a 105 equipped bike your price differences will begin to reflect a difference in component weigh more so than performance. Ultegra is the point where the diminishing returns really hit home. With Campy, I would say that Centaur is the big diminishing return point, with Chorus and Record/Super Record starting to get crazy in pricing.

In my mind, Veloce=105, Centaur=Ultegra, and then it starts to get into just silly money that unless you are a Cat 2 just doesn't make sense unless you just want it.

Truthfully, a Sora/Integra equipped bike is fine and dandy for a recreational non racer in my opinion. For a Clyde, my only two knocks on Sora is the shifters don't work as well under the heavy torque which we can lay down. This mostly while climbing though, and can be compensated for with timing and not shifting while pedaling. The other thing I don't like about Sora is the front dérailleur. It just doesn't seem to trim out as well and needs adjustment a bit more often than I care for.

If I were to offer advice that took any bling factor at all out of the equation, I would recommend a bike with an Integra group as the best bang for the buck. The extra money that would be spent getting up to 105 is, in my mind, better spent on wheels.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have a bike jar I stick a few pennies in every now and then that completely ignores everything I have stated about value and bang for the buck, lol.

A couple points...

I may be wrong, but I think the Shimano gruppo name you were thinking of is "Tiagra" (rhymes with "Viagra")

I agree with your criticism of the Sora front shifter - very hard to keep the front deraileur from rubbing - but I don't think cheap shifters make any difference for heavier riders - probably the cogs/chain/chainrings found on less expensive bikes have more poor shift performance under load, but I bet if you replaced the cogs and chain with higher quality the performance would be top notch, even with cheaper shifters.

A couple points...

I may be wrong, but I think the Shimano gruppo name you were thinking of is "Tiagra" (rhymes with "Viagra")

I agree with your criticism of the Sora front shifter - very hard to keep the front deraileur from rubbing - but I don't think cheap shifters make any difference for heavier riders - probably the cogs/chain/chainrings found on less expensive bikes have more poor shift performance under load, but I bet if you replaced the cogs and chain with higher quality the performance would be top notch, even with cheaper shifters.


Doh! Yes Tiagra. I have no idea why I was in Acura land on that one, lol.

You may be onto something with the cogs/chain/chainrings idea. I'll know before too long since I'm updating an older bike with a mix of Ultegra and 105, but only have a set of Sora shifters on hand.

Doh! Yes Tiagra. I have no idea why I was in Acura land on that one, lol.

You may be onto something with the cogs/chain/chainrings idea. I'll know before too long since I'm updating an older bike with a mix of Ultegra and 105, but only have a set of Sora shifters on hand.

In my mind, 'new chain-cogs-chainrings-cables-housing = new bike'

In my mind, 'new chain-cogs-chainrings-cables-housing = new bike'


Well, it will be almost since the only thing not getting replaced is the actual traingle frame itself. I'm even adding a CF fork and replacing teh seat post.

A good quality steel frame is priceless, and timeless.:love:

Truthfully, a Sora/Integra equipped bike is fine and dandy for a recreational non racer in my opinion. For a Clyde, my only two knocks on Sora is the shifters don't work as well under the heavy torque which we can lay down. This mostly while climbing though, and can be compensated for with timing and not shifting while pedaling. The other thing I don't like about Sora is the front dérailleur. It just doesn't seem to trim out as well and needs adjustment a bit more often than I care for.

Where you're really saving money in purchasing 105/Ultegra/DA level equipment is durability. The working mechanisms of 2200/Sora and even some of the Tiagra level components are plastic, where they are metal in the higher priced components. This is why the lower level components wear out faster, and need more frequent adjustments.

I have to agree with CliftonGK1. Durability is the key here. However, I run 105 gear because that's what has worked for me since my Centurion Ironman back in 1986. I used to havea Trek 5200 with Ultegra back in the 6500 days- crappy shifters. They rattled constantlynand failed completely before the 10,000 mile mark. I switched to 105 shifters and never looked back. I also owned a 2005 Felt F80 that was equipped with the Tiagra/105 rear derailleur set up. I upgraded that ride to full 105 10 speed. In all honesty, I don't think the actual shifting action has changed- save the fact the 105 is a 10 speed set up compared to the Tiagras 9 speed. The real change was in the Hollowtech II bottom bracket and 105 crank compared to my previous square tapered FSA RPM setup before. When I changed to 105, I was expecting a major change is shifting, but it wasn't much. I can feel the difference when I'm shifting while I'm climbing, but 105 feels just like Ultegra and only slightly better than Tiagra. My Tiagras made it over 11,000 miles and they still worked well when I swapped them out for my 105s. How much life they actually had left in them I can't say but a recreational rider should be comfortable with Tiagra. It shifts well and they aren't as costly as 105/Ultegra/DA shifters. Durability at 105/Ultegra level is for a more demanding rider. While Ultegra is somewhat lighter and is a more polished group, there's not much difference in the two groups performance-wise though. Many racers still race on 105 because of this. The big improvement comes when you move up to Dura Ace, but that's another story.

but I bet if you replaced the cogs and chain with higher quality the performance would be top notch, even with cheaper shifters.

I was scheduled to do a ride but Ultegra shifters crapped out on me and the rear derailleur was banged up from an acidental drop of the bike.

I had Sora shifter (8 speed) installed on the bike, along with a Sora rear der. I planned to use it for a month or so, maybe just long enough to get me throught the ride. It worked flawlessly. Actually better than the Ultegra ever did!:eek:

Ended up keeping it for over a year with "0" problems! Only replaced it cause I found great deals on DA components. ($64 9 speed rear der for example).:thumb: