Will Arnold Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 (edited) right, two choices, which would you choose.1. a bike costing 1000 pounds. it will never break and last forever.2. a bike costing 700 pounds. the components will start breaking in around a years time.which would you rather have?discuss/vote!Will Edited November 10, 2007 by WILL ARNOLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam F Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 1. Of course isnt it abit ovbious.. then you won't have to spend hours buying new parts and adding them.. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Depends what they are really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 well, you cant have a bike lasting forever thats guna be lightweight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 This is a bit silly really?Would i rather buy a Veyron or a Peugeot 306?If i'm in the market for a Veyron, i'll damn well get a Veyron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonMack Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 well, you cant have a bike lasting forever thats guna be lightweight!Depends if you ride it or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 This is a bit silly really?Would i rather buy a Veyron or a Peugeot 306?If i'm in the market for a Veyron, i'll damn well get a Veyron. that comparison is so far off the point, its almost unrelatable!which would you get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogre Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 £1000 for an unsnappable chain + pads + tyres + grips that never run out? winner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 £1000 for an unsnappable chain + pads + tyres + grips that never run out? winnerbut is it heavy? who knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 that comparison is so far off the point, its almost unrelatable!which would you get?It's not at all.If i've got 800k for a car i'm not going to get a 1k car that'll break down on the way home from the purchase.Same with a bike, if i have 1k for a bike i'll get that, if i've got 700 i'll get that one. Unless someone is really stupid they'll always get the bike they can afford, not a lesser bike.I think i get what you're trying to ask, but just not made it clear. What i think you're asking is..."Bike A; your exact dream colour scheme, will break after 6 months, costs 700 quid. Bike B; bright green frame, yellow forks, red brakes, purple handle bars, will not break"or..."Onza caged pedals at 15 quid, bought 4 times a year, or Ferrari pedals, bought once a year, cost of 60 quid" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 It's not at all.If i've got 800k for a car i'm not going to get a 1k car that'll break down on the way home from the purchase.Same with a bike, if i have 1k for a bike i'll get that, if i've got 700 i'll get that one. Unless someone is really stupid they'll always get the bike they can afford, not a lesser bike.I think i get what you're trying to ask, but just not made it clear. What i think you're asking is..."Bike A; your exact dream colour scheme, will break after 6 months, costs 700 quid. Bike B; bright green frame, yellow forks, red brakes, purple handle bars, will not break"or..."Onza caged pedals at 15 quid, bought 4 times a year, or Ferrari pedals, bought once a year, cost of 60 quid"nope you've got it wrong. thats not what im trying to get at.the 1000 bike is a gamble. you dont know how it rides, dont know its weight, its looks etc..same with the 700 quid bike, but atleast you know it will be lightish, with decent parts(because it costs 700 smackers!)just think, both bikes must be designable! not dreampt up. a bike which lasts forever cant be super light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Wood Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 What the f**k is this ?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Huh? That's not at all what you asked, you can't ask a question then make up additions that'll influence a persons answers maybe a different way after they've answered, makes the question completely pointless. Maybe i didn't get the joke or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG Drew Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 I don't know if I am missing the point here but it isn't going to make much of a difference if you spend 1k or 700 if you do big drop gaps/don't look after it. As long as you spend the money where it is needed by sacrificing other bits else where..Bit if you were just saying a 1000 quid bike WOULD last for ever and a 700 one wont then I'd spend £1000 no questions asked. If you didn't it would end up costing you more that twice as much in the long run... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Arnold Posted November 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 (edited) ok, maybe i worded it a bit wrong, but it stil works.people obvious answer is 1000 bike. but if you think about it, that bike could be an absolute tank, and a waste of 1000 pounds, where you could've spent that money on a decent bike that you know to be a good un, yet may snap/break in a time period we're all familiar to..dont really know why i posted, forget it. Edited November 10, 2007 by WILL ARNOLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basher Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 I dont quite get where your going with this really. Because its cheap doesnt necessarily mean things will break sooner. A tmaster hub is cheaper than a deng hub doesnt mean it will break sooner though. Your saying that the 1000 pound bike could be a tank and that you no the cheaper one will be better chance of being better. To be honest your post are kind of confuseign and your not making your point. Are we talking in general about all 1000 and 700 pound bikes. And you can easily add up all the weights of the parts so you will no if the 1000 pound one will be a tank or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai the Socket Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 same with the 700 quid bike, but atleast you know it will be lightish, with decent parts(because it costs 700 smackers!)a bike which lasts forever cant be super light.You're saying a cheap Onza T-Bird is lighter than a Koxx XTP because it's cheaper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey23 Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 Whats the point of this topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpson Posted November 11, 2007 Report Share Posted November 11, 2007 £1000 for an unsnappable chain + pads + tyres + grips that never run out? winnerSo you would pay 300 quid more for chain, pads, tryres and grips? haha 300 quid goes a hell of a long way on a bike if you look arround buy 2nd hand and in the right places..... 700 quid EASSSSSSYYYYY depends on frames and stuff though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.