Bicycle Mechanics - How do you define a "real" bicycle? (not a Bicycle Shaped Object)

I mean at what cost or quality level does a bicycle go from being a BSO to a "real" bicycle?

Looking at Shimano (for mountain bike or hybrid), you have these quality levels:
Deore XTR
Deore XT
Deore SLX or LX
Deore
Alivio
Acera
Altus
Tourney

I did read messages claiming Acera and 2300 shifted well enough and other messages stating the jump from Alivio to Deore or Sora to Tiagra is a significant one. But, do you need to buy Deore/Tiagra to have a real bike?

Or is it a certain cost? Some bicycles have Acera front and rear derailleurs for $400 with V-brakes and rigid forks. But, other bicycles with Acera with disc brakes and suspension forks can sell for $600. So, where do you draw the line?

Or, is it more specific things like whether a bike has a threadless headset and cassette instead of a threaded headset and freewheel?

A $20 bike is a bike, it's just not a good bike.

Wow, excellent question. I suppose the answer will vary quite a bit but I'm tempeted to use the definition of a "real bicycle" that Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward used for pornography; "I can't define it but I know it when I see it". :)

Objectively, I tend to consider that real bicycles come with Acera or above for MTB's and Sora or above for road bikes. The frame is also a factor. For example. forks with the dropouts made by just flattening the blade ends and slotting them are a disqualifier. It will be interesting to see other poster's thoughts.

Columbus CroMor or better tubing and Campi Triomphe or better components. otherwise you may as well walk :)


OH Yeah it should be Celeste tooo

I've seen $7000 BSO's with Super Record.

A bicycle is a bicycle. I really don't like the term, BSO. There are good bicycles and bad bicycles and terrible bicycles. They are all, however, bicycles.

A bicycle is a bicycle. I really don't like the term, BSO. There are good bicycles and bad bicycles and terrible bicycles. They are all, however, bicycles.
Semantically you are correct but the real point of this discussion is how do you tell the good, the bad and the terrible apart before you pay your money.

Objectively, I tend to consider that real bicycles come with Acera or above for MTB's and Sora or above for road bikes. The frame is also a factor. For example. forks with the dropouts made by just flattening the blade ends and slotting them are a disqualifier.

So this $350 titanium fork disqualifies the Brompton ;-)

Edit: oops, here is the link http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brompton-front-fork-titanium-qfkti-prod13508/

Semantically you are correct but the real point of this discussion is how do you tell the good, the bad and the terrible apart before you pay your money.
That'd be difficult. Probably a bike equipped with no name brand stuff would be terrible. There was a bike that came into the co-op with a rear dérailleur marked "Shinango"... I kid you not. That's a terrible bike.

Even my wife's sister's bike (Diamondback Serene) sitting in the garage equipped with Shimano Tourney stuff shifts fine. I'd consider it a decent bike.

I look at cost of repair(at lbs) vs cost of purchase(at store). The sooner the cost of a repair begins to approach a significant part of the purchase price, the more likely it is that it's a BSO.
A "rea"l bike should make financial sense to repair, beyond flats and brake/derailer tuning.
Take a department/web store bike for 100-something USD, not really a lot of repairs that you can reasonably have done on one of those.
Heck, even the cost of having tubes+tires replaced can easily be 1/3-1/2 the cost of purchase.
Or let's say that the crummy sus fork begins to squeal intolerably, and you can't stand to wait until it's rusted solid.
Even with the cheapest noname replacement fork Ebay have to offer, with work, you're still looking at half the purchase price or more to have it replaced.

There was a bike that came into the co-op with a rear dérailleur marked "Shinango"... I kid you not. That's a terrible bike.

:lol: Awesome.

A certain level of brand-snobbery comes into it I think. That aside, if the machine fulfils its function as a bicycle fairly reliably, it's a bicycle. If not, it's a BSO.

You forgot Dura Ace

What constitutes a "real" bike? IMHO a "real" bike is any bike that is safe and well enough designed and constructed to perform the job it was intended/promoted to do. My daugher has a basic 26" trail/commuter style bike with Altus crank, shifters and derailleurs, no-name v-brakes, and entry level Shimano brake levers. The bike was designed and sold to be reliable transportation at a low cost. With proper maintenance the bike has served her well with no cost other than normal maintenance (ie, no parts replacement due to premature failure).

I look at cost of repair(at lbs) vs cost of purchase(at store). The sooner the cost of a repair begins to approach a significant part of the purchase price, the more likely it is that it's a BSO.
A "rea"l bike should make financial sense to repair, beyond flats and brake/derailer tuning.
Take a department/web store bike for 100-something USD, not really a lot of repairs that you can reasonably have done on one of those.
Heck, even the cost of having tubes+tires replaced can easily be 1/3-1/2 the cost of purchase.
Or let's say that the crummy sus fork begins to squeal intolerably, and you can't stand to wait until it's rusted solid.
Even with the cheapest noname replacement fork Ebay have to offer, with work, you're still looking at half the purchase price or more to have it replaced.

Not a good rule of thumb.

If you pay $3000 for a bike, and it requires tube and tire replacement (Hypothetical situation), and you put $100 in the bike for repairs; thus far, the total cost of the bike if $3100.

If you pay $100 for a bike, and it requires the same; thus far the total cost of the bike is $200.

You are still ahead with the purported "BSO". It's like saying you shouldn't do a $1000 dollar repair to a $500 dollar car; and instead buy a new car for $5000. It makes no sense.

You forgot Dura Ace

What constitutes a "real" bike? IMHO a "real" bike is any bike that is safe and well enough designed and constructed to perform the job it was intended/promoted to do. My daugher has a basic 26" trail/commuter style bike with Altus crank, shifters and derailleurs, no-name v-brakes, and entry level Shimano brake levers. The bike was designed and sold to be reliable transportation at a low cost. With proper maintenance the bike has served her well with no cost other than normal maintenance (ie, no parts replacement due to premature failure).

^^^This

With the additional requirement of "Fits your needs". Makes no sense to spend $1000 on a road bike, when you really need a commuter.

PS PM me the name/brand of the daughter's bike, if you don't mind.

You are still ahead with the purported "BSO". It's like saying you shouldn't do a $1000 dollar repair to a $500 dollar car; and instead buy a new car for $5000. It makes no sense.

I don't agree with Dabac's method of determining a "real bike" but I don't think he's saying what you think he is. Using your analogy, dabac is saying that you shouldn't do a $1000 repair on a $500 car when you can just buy another fully functional $500 car to replace it. When a new department store bike costs as much as a repair it starts to make a lot of sense.

In my experience the leading example of BSOs are department store kids bikes. Those things are death traps in as-sold condition and at best will only lead to the kid seeing cycling as being no better than walking. When my family asks me about buying a bike for their kid I now suggest they let me pick out a used bike for them rather than waste their money on department store trash. Some of the adult department store bikes aren't all that bad as long as you don't go for the "high end" full suspension model.

I was rather snarky in my early response so here is my real one.

as others have said a bike is a bike. if it does what you need to without breaking it is fabulous.

if you want a real mountain bike for riding in the dirt and mud, over rocks and fallen trees, get a full chromoly frame and fork, and sealed bearings. if your budget is say $500 go to the next bike up at $550 or 600 (trust me I learned that lesson the hard way).

IMHO full suspension is not really needed unless you do alot of bumpy downhill

If it has 2 wheels, and you can ride it by steering to balance it, it IS a bicycle. A $10,000 bike is no more of a bicycle that the one you buy at the police sale for $2.00. I have problems with snobbery that comes from fully kitted racer boy types that want to dictate what THEY deem to be acceptable to be labled a bike.

What's a BSO?

I was rather snarky in my early response so here is my real one.

as others have said a bike is a bike. if it does what you need to without breaking it is fabulous.

if you want a real mountain bike for riding in the dirt and mud, over rocks and fallen trees, get a full chromoly frame and fork, and sealed bearings. if your budget is say $500 go to the next bike up at $550 or 600 (trust me I learned that lesson the hard way).

IMHO full suspension is not really needed unless you do alot of bumpy downhill

Sorry but if you want a real® mountain bike, get one with a well crafted frame regardless of frame material. That applies to all real® bikes.

Suspension is more useful than just on downhills too. Front suspension improves control and rear suspension improve climbing. That they add comfort is just a bonus.

If you pay $100 for a bike, and it requires the same; thus far the total cost of the bike is $200.
Except in the real world that $100 bike will require a lot more than a new tire and tube to perform acceptably and reliably.


You are still ahead with the purported "BSO". It's like saying you shouldn't do a $1000 dollar repair to a $500 dollar car; and instead buy a new car for $5000. It makes no sense.
Yes it does because that $500 car is very likely to need several more expensive repairs in the near future and the expression "spending good money after bad" applies.

What's a BSO?

Bike Shaped Object

Except in the real world that $100 bike will require a lot more than a new tire and tube to perform acceptably and reliably.


Really? Not been my experience. In fact, before the age of 18, I owned two bikes: Both huffies. Both ridden like all hell. And both required very little maintenance, other than flat repairs.



Yes it does because that $500 car is very likely to need several more expensive repairs in the near future and the expression "spending good money after bad" applies.

Just like bikes, cars have very few truly expensive repairs. Engine and transmission about about it. An engine/tranny replacement on a $500 car will most likely come up to about $2500 total. Still less than the $5000 car.

And, with a $100 bike, you can replace everything but the frame with entry level components, and still only come to about $1000. So, your total cost of ownership is $1100.

And, don't give me the line "well, everything has to be replaced to make it an acceptable ride", because I know plenty of people riding stock Next bikes, and they look like they're having plenty of fun on it.

And, yes, you'll have to replace the chain when it wears out on the $100 bike. Guess what? You have to do that on all bikes. Maybe the $100 bike's will come sooner. But, in the end, you'll have more miles on the frame, by the time you have gotten to the cost of an entry level LBS bike.

Same with all the components. You don't have to replace most out of the box. Out of the box, in order to make is a safe ride, you MIGHT have to replace the brakes. And you most likely have to regrease it, and put it back together. Even with that, if you went to an LBS to do it (Who would work on them), you still will come under what a LBS bike would cost.

"Spending good money after bad" only applies to lemons, not to otherwise serviceable things.

This idea that you have to replace is what drives corporations like Wal-Mart to sell disposable objects.

A bike assembled and backed by a Professional Bike Shop. ..
with service after the sale.

a BSO, gets taken out of the box and put on display and is a commodity ,
like a toaster..
after the cashier, you are on your own..,

I don't agree with Dabac's method of determining a "real bike" but I don't think he's saying what you think he is. Using your analogy, dabac is saying that you shouldn't do a $1000 repair on a $500 car when you can just buy another fully functional $500 car to replace it. When a new department store bike costs as much as a repair it starts to make a lot of sense.

Pretty much so. Obviously I'm not going to try to nail down any precise proportion, and I'm not even touching "sentimental value". But the bottom line still stands.
Prices where I'm at may be a bit different, but if I put a department store bike at 100%, the cheapest rear wheel I can buy OTC is 30%. If i had to pay someone to move the cassette, tube & tire over, and to set the brakes for the new rim, I'm easily looking at +50% of the purchase value.
And a proper bike store wouldn't sell such a basic, noname wheel, so asking them for a package deal on part AND labor wouldn't improve things - rather the opposite.

Now, keep in mind that even BSOs tend to do OK for casual riding as long as they're new and shiny.

Unless I'm absolutely strapped for cash, and/or willing to swear blind that the rest of the bike is in pristine condition, I'm quickly reaching the point where getting another BSO makes more sense than repairing the old. Do I need to replace the cables any time soon? That'd be another 20% if the lbs do it. Brake pads? About the same. Assuming one more "repair" in the foreseeable future, buying a new bike is maybe 20% more. But that gives me a brand new bike, all clean and shiny. It's a pretty good bet that it would offer more value for money.

And don't be too literal about "real" bikes. I'm mainly trying to fight the mathematics.
Most people expect some proportionality between initial purchase and cost of repairs, having to tell them that whatever they need done will be a significant fraction of the initial cost tend not to sit very well.
And that's just the first repair. If they get any kind of mileage in the bike will soon need more TLC, and then you're back to square one again. It's just bad use of money. Every repair will pretty much also mean an upgrade, and we all know how that story ends when it comes to adding up the sums.
There's been a few department store bikes sold over here that were so poorly made that they were outright dangerous to ride - at any level. They eventually triggered warnings, recalls and whatnot. Obviously it's in everybodys best interest to avoid those.
Then I've seen one that was bought by a MTB club with the explicit purpose of testing it to destruction. They had all kinds of troubles, dropouts getting warped, bent brake arms, bent chain rings, bars pointing every which way after a drop etc.
For more normal use, that bike would have been entirely acceptable. Heavy, clunky, sluggish. But not dangerous and more fun than walking.
The bike I ride the most, my commuter, is definitely an inexpensive bike by most regular rider's standards. But it's still good enough that a new fork is an acceptable fraction of its value.

I'm really not trying to be a snob about it. But if you're going to use a bike enough for it to require more than token maintenance, it sure is easier if it's worth it.

Really? Not been my experience. In fact, before the age of 18, I owned two bikes: Both huffies. Both ridden like all hell. And both required very little maintenance, other than flat repairs.

And, don't give me the line "well, everything has to be replaced to make it an acceptable ride", because I know plenty of people riding stock Next bikes, and they look like they're having plenty of fun on it.
A lot of what you claim is based on undemanding riders on very modest terrain doing low mileage. Any department store bike will work adequately on flat Rail-Trails or neighborhood streets with no demand for fast, reliable shifting or hard use of the brakes.

..Just like bikes, cars have very few truly expensive repairs. Engine and transmission about about it. An engine/tranny replacement on a $500 car will most likely come up to about $2500 total. Still less than the $5000 car.

But a lot more than another $500 car. Sure, that one may blow the tranny next week, but who knows what the 500-repaired-for-2500 will come up with in that time? Maybe you fail a MOT due to rust? or to the cats going out or....
It's a gamble either way, and the car vs bike comparison don't hold up very well. With a new BSO, you know where you're starting. with a $500 car, it's an indetermined state.

I personally prefer to look at this issue in terms of reliablity,
serviceability (i.e. can it be repaired and how long will parts
be available to do so), and functional performance (does it
do the job for which it is intended).

So by my standards (summed up as product design life cycle)
a lot of the newer high end stuff like Di 2 is pretty questionable,
as are almost all the ___mart bikes.

I look at a bike and ask myself, "How long will this be around,
and how useful will it be during that time period?"

But I am both old and odd.:o

Designed to be useful, durable and repairable with a long life (10+ years) expectancy, it's a "real" bike.

Designed to be disposable, made with a quality level intended to get the bike out the door and through a few rides before it begins to self-destruct, one size fits all, and no support after the sale whatsoever.......that's your BSO.

Real bikes don't have to cost much, either. I'd rather have/work on a 10 year old real bike than a brand new BSO any day.

Designed to be useful, durable and repairable with a long life (10+ years) expectancy, it's a "real" bike.

Designed to be disposable, made with a quality level intended to get the bike out the door and through a few rides before it begins to self-destruct, one size fits all, and no support after the sale whatsoever.......that's your BSO.

I think I agree with this way to make the distinction, at least for myself. Many classes of product can be looked at this way, not just bikes.

Some things were made to be used, other things were made to be sold.

However, if the goal is for a new or inexperienced rider to be able to tell what is worth his/her money, it's not very helpful by itself. For this purpose I think the best way is to ask who assembled the bike. If it was assembled by a mechanic your chances of getting a bike worth owning are good. Otherwise, not. Note that this allows for department store bikes that are reassembled by a mechanic after purchase.

If it was assembled by a mechanic your chances of getting a bike worth owning are good. Otherwise, not. Note that this allows for department store bikes that are reassembled by a mechanic after purchase.

I agree with much of this, but sadly, these days, even the hand of pro wrench can't make up for the inherent deficiencies in most sub-$200 department store bikes.

I've been at this for 30 years and have never seen such abysmal quality.

Consumer Reports says, after testing a number of bikes from various sources, "if you care about value, don't spend less than $400, and don't buy it anywhere but a bike shop".

A lot of what you claim is based on undemanding riders on very modest terrain doing low mileage. Any department store bike will work adequately on flat Rail-Trails or neighborhood streets with no demand for fast, reliable shifting or hard use of the brakes.

I am buying this logic and here is why. A year and half ago I purchased my Schwinn Broadway @ Costco for $200 thinking at the time that if it allwoed me to get some exercise and lose a bit a weight it would be a value purchase. Spent the first year, spring, summer and early fall doing almost daily rides up to 6 miles without any issues but never hard or fast. Started riding again in March with about the same program. Soon started streaching the distance and effort. End of March changed phones and started using RunKeeper app to track my fitness. Best thing I have ever done as an adult. Then I popped my first spoke. Had the LBS replace that one spoke and true the wheel for what I considered a reasonable charge. I've always done my own wrenching, as a youth I attempted truing wheels a few times and it just is not cost effective for me to spend my time doing this.

Shortly thereafter broke another spoke. LBS owner, great guy btw, explained that my wheel was just worn out and suggested replacement. Tire was nearing bald so I hade that changed as well. Come to find out needed a cassette upgrade as well; total cost of repair was a bit over $100. Couple of weeks later popped my first front spoke. Off to the LBS I go and get a new wheel and tire to match the rear, another $90. A month or two later kept hearing noise that seemed to be coming from the BB. While attempting to remove the DS crank using a shadetree puller set up damaged the small chainring. This repair only cost me $40 for parts and I do not recall how much for the labor.

Sometime after that a windstorm (normal part of life where I live) blew my bike over and tore the front of my seat. Wanted a different shape anyway so replaced that for $55. Then added two water bottle cages, another $20. Got a flat on my way home, actually had the factory tube fail near the stem (the other one did so before) so then purchased two tubes and a frame pump; I think even with a LBS purchased bike this would/ should be an expense.

Then the day came when I pooped a spoke on my newish rear wheel. Limped to the LBS. They admitted to selling me an economy wheelset when they should have sold me a much more expensive durable one. Good thing is they would credit me the cost of the cheap one. One week later my bike is wearing a Velocity Dyad wheel, I'm not snobbish enough to recall what hub and spokes but the LBS sales price totalled $140, before credit for money already spent.

If I had to do this over I would probally not change a thing knowing now what I know. However when it came time to buy a bike for my 5 year-old it was a LBS Redline. I'll not skimp on wheelsets again given my usage and weight. Within the next week, likely sooner I'll top 2000 miles since keeping track and half my ridding is uphill and usually into a 15-25 mph wind. I started weighing near 290 this year and now am hovering about 250.

My bottom line is that at the time I purchased my bike $200 was almost more than I could afford; but also one of the best purchases I've ever made to improve my health and well being. That single purchase started me down the road back to fitness. Having been an elite distance runner in HS (1982 grad) with a pr of 4:36 for the 1600 meter (a yard short of a mile) I understood what fitness is. By this time next year I hope to be under 200 lbs and on a LBS bike. Would I recommend a $200. bike to a friend? you betchya, but with the added emphisis that they will be paying more down the road to fix and upgrade it depending on how much they use it. Considering what my other ride costs to operate, a Y2K Yukon, my bike has been cheaper despite the repairs and upgrades.

Black Walnut, congrats on your goals, and on your aggressive use of a $200 (+repairs) Costco bike. But even you know it's a disposable commodity, and when you decide to upgrade you could probably sell it for $50 - maybe a little more with the wheel upgrade.

Instead, you could have bought a [better] used $300-$350 bike. For example, I picked up a gently used 2003 Trek 1000 a few summers ago for $350 including clipless pedals, 2 helmets, a Specialized floor pump, and a tire patch kit & CO2 inflator w/saddle bag. After using it as one of my main rides for a summer (I have a bunch of 70's-80's bikes, too), I sold it - sans all the extras that I still have - for about what I bought it for. And no repairs required.

Just another way to skin the cat.

Most of my older bikes I sell for more than I paid, but they usually require some elbow grease.

I look at the BSO as something I wouldn't let my daughter ride. I am looking for a bike to promote the cycling interest in her, not something that something that is so crappy that she would rather walk than ride.

It's all about the frame. The "heart and soul" of a good bicycle is in the frame. Components can be easily changed and upgraded. For me personally a real bicycle is buying the frame that I like and then buildying it with whatever components I choose.

Have to agree that the quality of many cheap bicycles has never been worse in the 30 plus years I have been riding and wrenching and even though a bike shaped object is still technically a bicycle, it isn't a good one and not anything I would let my friends and family ride.

Biggest issue is with kid's bicycles which are often built to the lowest standard imaginable.

And I am no bike snob... I don't own a bicycle that paid more than $100.00 for originally and have rebuilt and refurbished them all with quality parts that have also been recycled. I do have some very nice bicycles... some are hand built, some are production hand builts, and a good number of them are old Raleighs.

Cheap bicycles used to be far better than what we are seeing now and this is due in part to those cheaper bicycles of 20-30 years ago being simpler machines that were made for transportation and recreation and they did not try and pretend to be anything but.

Worst seems to be the heavy cheap full suspension bikes that are heavy, poorly built, and have drive systems and brakes that are sub standard... seems like if manufacturers who cater to this market stick to rigid bicycles with decent parts the quality is much better.

My 11 year old daughter has a nice Raleigh hard tail that came from a department store which was pretty good in most respects but I would not let her ride it until I upgraded the pressed steel v brakes to better quality alloy ones and now her bike is rocking Avids and Kool Stops. Despite her diminutive size she lays a beating on this bike and will pop wheelies, bunny hop, and fly off curbs and as she can hit speeds of 30 plus kmh she needs brakes that work.

My daughters also ride vintage Raleigh 3 speeds which are their townies and commuter bikes... they date to 1977 and 1980 and they lay down some good mileage on bikes that are solid and comfortable, and a joy to ride. Neither was a very expensive bicycle when they were new but the quality was quite good.

My daily driver is a 23 year old Kuwahara Shasta ATB that did cost over $700.00 new but I bought the frame and fork used and built it up with some nice recycled parts and it has been serving me extremely well in a number of incarnations for 4 years.

Friend has the same bicycle that he bought new in 1988 and if you amortize the $700.00 he paid for it over the 23 years he has owned it (and it has been a solid bicycle) the cost is $30.00 a year.

My wife's commuter cost $1000.00 and if we amortize this over 5 years it is $200.00 / yr and expect this bike to last decades... not years, or months. Should note that she rides it 5000 miles a year, 365 days of the year, in any weather.

All bikes need regular maintainence, tyres wear out, chains and cassettes wear out, and regular service will extend the life of any bicycle... many of the BSO's in this world need to be fully overhauled before they are even road ready so one could factor in an extra cost of 40-60 for this and the cheaper grade parts will wear out much faster and require replacement much sooner.

A lot of what you claim is based on undemanding riders on very modest terrain doing low mileage. Any department store bike will work adequately on flat Rail-Trails or neighborhood streets with no demand for fast, reliable shifting or hard use of the brakes.

Really? My department store bike does all of that, really well. In fact, last week, I broke 30mph on it, on a NYS Highway. And, since August (When I bought it), it has only needed a derailleur adjustment (At initial purchase time), and some chain oiling. And, thus far, I'm at about 600 miles or so (Bought on August 16th, so two months exactly).

I don't consider 300 miles a month to be a slouch. It sure isn't what some riders do, but it's far more than most do. And it's been used on roads and mups (It's a road bike).

My dad's Huffy I recently cleaned, has at least 5000 miles on it. That was his "light duty bike", and it's all factory parts, except tubes (They dry-rotted while in storage for 5 years).

My road bike cost me $260 (About 60 in accessories like a rack, bell, mirror, water bottle/cage, etc).

I look at it from the other way round...

To me, anything with 2 wheels that gets you from A 2 B reliably is a bike.

To me, the BSO's are the overpriced? specialist machines that, unless you are competing in sport on a regular basis (be it down hill, dirt cross, BMX, road racing, cross country, track, cyclocross, marathon, trathlon &c...) is complete and utter overkill and is brought out once a year because you are too scared of scratching it.

It should be a question about use vs quality as well.
A colleague of mine bought a "full sus MTB" for the kind of money you can easily spend on a cassette.
But he's going to use it for the 2 mile ride along dirt roads between his cabin and his fishing spot.
I'm betting the bike will never be shifted out of the middle ring. Between rides it'll be stored in an outhouse.
Excellent choice I'd say. Not much point in calling it a BSO even, as the use it'll see is CAS (casual and sedate).
Unless some visitor borrows the bike and gets a bit frisky with it, it'll last him for ages. And when it eventually will require a repair, the sheer time span will make up for the lopsided cost situation of repair vs purchase.

But let's assume that out of the blue he'll develop a taste for singletrack, turning 3 mile rides into 20 mile sweatfests? Or that he gets another similar bike and tries to use it to commute with?
This is when the BSO status will begin to hurt and make things financially awkward.

As far as I'm concerned, a 'real bike' is one that is ridden frequently. If it's not ridden frequently, it may as well be a BSO, regardless of how expensive it may be. :)

A bicycle is a bicycle. I really don't like the term, BSO. There are good bicycles and bad bicycles and terrible bicycles. They are all, however, bicycles.

Just diving in before reading the whole thread, so someone may well have already said this, but BSO is a very good term to describe the sub-$100 rubbish sold at department and big box stores. No bike shop sells crap like that; cheap actual bikes start around $250-300.

These are only 'real bikes' by only the most generously literal description. In reality, like so much dross these days, they are created to be sold rather than used.

The quality standard of these bikes is below cheap and nasty; it's so bad these BSOs merely embody a waste of energy and material.

@ the OP: if it has any Shimano stuff on it, even the very cheapest stuff, I'd say it's likely just a cheap and nasty bike rather than BSO.

BSO is the lowest of the low. There's no rational excuse for such awful crap to exist.


There was a bike that came into the co-op with a rear dérailleur marked "Shinango"... I kid you not. That's a terrible bike.

PMSL, Shinango gruppo = fail at bikeness

To me, the BSO's are the overpriced? specialist machines that, unless you are competing in sport on a regular basis (be it down hill, dirt cross, BMX, road racing, cross country, track, cyclocross, marathon, trathlon &c...) is complete and utter overkill and is brought out once a year because you are too scared of scratching it.

Hey, don't be lumping road bikes in with all those specialists; the road bike is the general-purpose design.

For some years, this was my only form of transport. That's a 900g frame.

http://velospace.org/files/cfr1.jpg

I look at cost of repair(at lbs) vs cost of purchase(at store). The sooner the cost of a repair begins to approach a significant part of the purchase price, the more likely it is that it's a BSO.
A "rea"l bike should make financial sense to repair, beyond flats and brake/derailer tuning.
Take a department/web store bike for 100-something USD, not really a lot of repairs that you can reasonably have done on one of those.
Heck, even the cost of having tubes+tires replaced can easily be 1/3-1/2 the cost of purchase.
Or let's say that the crummy sus fork begins to squeal intolerably, and you can't stand to wait until it's rusted solid.
Even with the cheapest noname replacement fork Ebay have to offer, with work, you're still looking at half the purchase price or more to have it replaced.


Not a good rule of thumb.

If you pay $3000 for a bike, and it requires tube and tire replacement (Hypothetical situation), and you put $100 in the bike for repairs; thus far, the total cost of the bike if $3100.

If you pay $100 for a bike, and it requires the same; thus far the total cost of the bike is $200.

You are still ahead with the purported "BSO". It's like saying you shouldn't do a $1000 dollar repair to a $500 dollar car; and instead buy a new car for $5000. It makes no sense.

I agree. I ride a bike that I picked up for $5. I've since spent close to a thousand dollars kitting it out the way I like. I know some people wouldn't see the sense in this, but in addition to my prefering the geometry and utility of a 20 year old full rigid MTB, I'd spend almost as much (if not exactly as much) replacing all the components of any brand new bike to suit me.

If I followed that rule of thumb, I might as well throw away the bike rather than change the first flat! It's value to me has virtually nothing to do with its cost (only if I had to replace it), for me the bicycle isn't an investment in the monetary sense.

Really? My department store bike does all of that, really well. In fact, last week, I broke 30mph on it, on a NYS Highway. And, since August (When I bought it), it has only needed a derailleur adjustment (At initial purchase time), and some chain oiling. And, thus far, I'm at about 600 miles or so (Bought on August 16th, so two months exactly).....

My road bike cost me $260 (About 60 in accessories like a rack, bell, mirror, water bottle/cage, etc).
OK, now go buy a $80 bike from X-Mart and come back in two more months and let us know how it worked out for you.

My regular commuter bike was salvaged from the local dump, so was probably a BSO in its former life. I repainted it (not necessary, I just didn't like the colour) and changed the rusty cables and greased the bearings and it's currently still serving me well. I've changed a lot of parts on it since then, but that's always been due to me being a tinkerer, not because anything broke. In doing so I've probably spent a considerable amount, which some would find silly on a cheap bike, but I now have a bike that is well suited to my needs. I'd probably still have ended up changing parts on a brand new bike.

I'll agree though, some of the utter junk being sold currently can barely be described as a bicycle. More like a toy bike that's left in the shed for most of the year, used a occasionally until it breaks, then thrown away.

For some years, this was my only form of transport. That's a 900g frame.
A 900 gram welded steel or aluminum, frame? Are you sure? Only the lightest carbon frames break the 1000 gm barrier with the only exception I know about being Litespeed's Ti Ghisello of several years back and that frame was a noodle in anything but the smallest size. I've never heard of any standard steel, aluminum or other Ti frame in a "normal size" being anywhere near that light.

Rodriguez is making sub 1000 gram S3 steel frames but you gotta pay for those. I'd be amazed if the mystery frame up there is actually 900 grams.

For me, the bottom line is: does it let you ride all year long with just one, max two services. By service I mean changing worn parts and tuning shifters/brakes.


An acquaintance is a former cyclist and a bike mechanic. When looking for a bike, I asked him to build me one, that I could ride all year long with one service in the spring (and one in the autumn if necessary). It is my main means of transport and I go around 10 km each day. So it was: the cheapest possible as long as it is reliable. Not below that.

He went for a 150 Euros general store bike, took out new parts that were not good (and sold them cheap in his shop), and replaced with quality parts. Acera shifters were good enough he said. Not expert enough to even tell what other parts were put (better spokes on rear wheel, shimano bearings, shimano shifters and brakes, as well as levers).

Bike has seen over 3000 kms in a little over a year with no problems so far. If it starts asking for too much maintenance, regardless of cost, I will sell it and look for something better.

Oh yes, in the end, with all the extras (rack, LED lights etc) it cost around 350 euros. Not cheap. Like Sixty Fiver said, cheap bikes are not as good as they used to be. Seems like, in Serbia at least, you can't get a decent NEW bike for under 300 euros, which is an average monthly wage here.

I did read messages claiming Acera and 2300 shifted well enough and other messages stating the jump from Alivio to Deore or Sora to Tiagra is a significant one. But, do you need to buy Deore/Tiagra to have a real bike?

There is a bit of a chasm between a BSO and what level bike an enthusiast will recommend to another enthusiast. If it's only a $100 difference from an A-group (Acera/Alivio/Altus) bike and a Deore bike I'd go with the deore bike. I've a Trek 4000 with an A-group front derailer and LX rear derailer. Front derailer works just fine. I used to turn my nose up at the A-group stuff, but no more.

Roadies typically won't even come close to considering 2200/2300 stuff and most would rather pretend that Sora doesn't exist. A true BSO road bike will often have sub-2200 stuff, from what I've seen.

I'm not sure if this is still true but a few years ago if you saw a bike with a sticker that said "Shimano Equipped" on it somewhere, it was a BSO. The upper range up these would have Tourney derailers and the lower end would have derailers that just said Shimano, or perhaps Shimano SIS.

Ahh, I found a photographic example. GMC Denali. Note the "Shimano Equipped" decal and the differences between its derailer and the 2200 derailer below. The claw derailer is often a good tip-off to a BSO. Also the riveted chainrings, often a sign of a junk bike.

http://www.bikes4families.com/images/92706_BLACK-YELLOW_DENALI_ROAD_BIKE_REAR_DERAILLEUR_2009_300DPI.JPG

http://cyclepath.ca/shop/images/260061.jpg

Hey, don't be lumping road bikes in with all those specialists; the road bike is the general-purpose design.

For some years, this was my only form of transport. That's a 900g frame.

http://velospace.org/files/cfr1.jpg


A 900 gram welded steel or aluminum, frame? Are you sure? Only the lightest carbon frames break the 1000 gm barrier with the only exception I know about being Litespeed's Ti Ghisello of several years back and that frame was a noodle in anything but the smallest size. I've never heard of any standard steel, aluminum or other Ti frame in a "normal size" being anywhere near that light.

despite the fuzzy picture, I have managed to do a little detective work. He left out a zero.

That appears to be a Giant CFR 1, in its factory spec it weighed 21.3 lbs or 9.66 kg, not 0.9 kg.


Bicycle Type Road race & triathlon
Year or Manufacture 1995/1996
MSRP (new) $1,700.00
Weight 21.3
Sizes 49 cm, 51 cm, 53 cm, 55 cm, 57 cm, 59 cm, 61 cm, 63 cm
Colors Red
Item ID 54340

Frame & Fork
Frame Construction Bonded carbon fiber
Frame Tubing Material Carbon fiber composite
Fork Brand & Model Giant
Fork Material Carbon fiber composite, aero crown
Rear Shock Not applicable

Components
Component Group Shimano 600 Ultegra
Brakeset Shimano 600 Ultegra Dual Pivot brakes, Shimano 600 Ultegra levers
Shift Levers Shimano 600 Ultegra STI Dual Control
Front Derailleur Shimano 600 Ultegra, bottom-pull/braze-on
Rear Derailleur Shimano 600 Ultegra
Crankset Shimano 600 Ultegra, 39/53 teeth
Pedals Alloy cage w/clips & straps
Bottom Bracket Shimano BB-UN52, 115 mm spindle
BB Shell Width 68mm English
Rear Cogs 8-speed, 12 - 25 teeth
Chain KMC SS-91S, 1/2 x 3/32"
Seatpost Kalloy SP-248, 27.2 mm diameter
Saddle Selle San Marco Strada
Handlebar Giant alloy
Handlebar Extensions Not applicable
Handlebar Stem Giant alloy
Headset 1" YST

Wheels
Hubs
Rims Rigida DP18 Aero, 32-hole
Tires 700 x 23c IRC PaperLite Plus
Spoke Brand Stainless steel, 2.0mm straight gauge
Spoke Nipples Brass nipples