Is this bike any good

alyssum

Is this bike any good for around town going to work, shortv distance and shops

or this one

RobFowl

alyssum wrote: »

Is this bike any good for around town going to work, shortv distance and shops

or this one

You are taking the p*ss I hope



Both absolute cr*p

Darkglasses

Definitely not the second one, completely ignore any bikes with rear suspension at anything near that price.

The first one is made of the absolute most basic components, not made to last a reasonable length of time. Would strongly suggest looking at second hand bikes if under 200 is the absolute maximum.

Try to find bikes with no suspension if possible. It's extra weight and means the rest of the bike is made cheaper, and you completely don't need it. Narrow wheels and tires will also make the bike much faster on the road.

Look for something like this. Even if you have no intention of getting into cycling as a hobby, this will be a lot easier to ride and last much longer.

http://www.adverts.ie/bikes/claud-butler-hybrid-race/3832884

alyssum

RobFowl wrote: »

You are taking the p*ss I hope



Both absolute cr*p

and why would i do that, i do not know about bikes

Quigs Snr

Both are crap. The one without the rear suspension is less crap, so get that one if you are getting one of them. Some of the carrera bikes get ok reviews for starter commuter bikes, so if you can stretch a little more it might be worth considering.

Henlars67

Don't buy a bike from argos. If you can't stretch an extra 100 or 200 look for a second hand bike, or if you want a new one cheap the likes of this http://www.halfords.ie/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_storeId_11101_catalogId_15551_productId_922789_langId_-1_categoryId_212377 from Halfords, while still not great is better than the two you've linked to.

Plus you have somewhere to take it back to easily when something goes wrong

alyssum

Darkglasses wrote: »

Definitely not the second one, completely ignore any bikes with rear suspension at anything near that price.

The first one is made of the absolute most basic components, not made to last a reasonable length of time. Would strongly suggest looking at second hand bikes if under 200 is the absolute maximum.

Try to find bikes with no suspension if possible. It's extra weight and means the rest of the bike is made cheaper, and you completely don't need it. Narrow wheels and tires will also make the bike much faster on the road.

Look for something like this. Even if you have no intention of getting into cycling as a hobby, this will be a lot easier to ride and last much longer.

http://www.adverts.ie/bikes/claud-butler-hybrid-race/3832884

thanks but these are half price so would be over 200 new. what is wrong with rear suspension

Darkglasses

alyssum wrote: »

thanks but these are half price so would be over 200 new. what is wrong with rear suspension

First of all, absolutely nobody in the world needs rear suspension to cycle on anything but very hairy off-road adventures. Definitely unnecessary for cycling to work/shops. It is very, very heavy. It causes massive inefficiency, by making you bounce up and down on the spot as you pedal. And also, when you're buying a mega-cheap bike that's money that is really needed elsewhere on the bike.

Mega-cheap bikes with rear suspension are made for looking at rather than actually cycling. They're meant to look like proper downhill mountain bikes, not perform anything like them. Bikes with workable, worthwhile rear suspension cost from 1,000 upwards, absolutely no less.

When your buying a cheap bike, at all times thing about efficiency. Try and buy a bike with the absolute bare minimum of what you need. Nobody really needs suspension to ride on tarmac. You mightn't even really need gears, and you certainly don't need more than 20 gears.

unichall

alyssum wrote: »

thanks but these are half price so would be over 200 new. what is wrong with rear suspension

Just because they are advertised at over 200e RRP does not neccessarily make them a good bike. You could advertise them as 80% off RRP of 1000e but its still the same bike and the higher RRP doesn't make it a better bike.

Suspension is not neccessary for what you described you ned the bike, plus it adds extra weight plus on a budget bike you are getting budget parts and it is just one more part to break and if it does you could be forking 50% of the cost of your bike to get it fixed. If you are dead set on a new bike in that price range the one linked from Halfords above isnt a bad buy at the price and a lot better than the two you linked

alyssum

Darkglasses wrote: »

First of all, absolutely nobody in the world needs rear suspension to cycle on anything but very hairy off-road adventures. Definitely unnecessary for cycling to work/shops. It is very, very heavy. It causes massive inefficiency, by making you bounce up and down on the spot as you pedal. And also, when you're buying a mega-cheap bike that's money that is really needed elsewhere on the bike.

Mega-cheap bikes with rear suspension are made for looking at rather than actually cycling. They're meant to look like proper downhill mountain bikes, not perform anything like them. Bikes with workable, worthwhile rear suspension cost from 1,000 upwards, absolutely no less.

thanks did not know that

AltAccount

Rear suspension is more expensive to make than a standard rear end, therefore on a cheap bike it'll either be done badly, or at the expense of another part of the bike.

Do you need rear suspension for some reason?

alyssum

AltAccount wrote: »

Rear suspension is more expensive to make than a standard rear end, therefore on a cheap bike it'll either be done badly, or at the expense of another part of the bike.

Do you need rear suspension for some reason?

no i was curious idid not even know there was rear suspension. I am not a bike knowledgeable but i would like on to go to shop /work and around town./for exercise. Not for off road or similar

I guiess ypou guys know more than the average but the bikes i linked got some good reviews. the halfords one someone linked looks decent enough for me