Which bicycle should I get?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I need a new bike ASAP and as such I ordered one from a national chain store earlier in the week, as they were the only supplier for the cycle to work scheme I wanted to use (NB “Cycle to work” is a UK government scheme where you buy the bike through your employer, meaning you pay small monthly instalments through your salary in a tax-efficient way). However, I now find the scheme is not running at the moment, so it’s not an option. That being the case, I’d rather buy the bike from my local independent shop, all else being equal. However, the two stores do not offer the same bike.

The national chain option is the Boardman Hybrid Comp. Through the local shop I could get a Ridgeback Flight, which comes in three flavours: 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0.

I have ridden the Boardman and the Ridgeback 2.0 (albeit only around the shop/car park) and liked both. As I see it, the advantages of each are as follows:

Boardman

I have already ordered it (but could cancel for free - I think), it’s the cheapest, it’s slightly lighter.

Ridgeback

I get to support my local bike shop (which is where I usually go for accessories, parts, servicing as they have been very helpful in the past), it’s a more established manufacturer, has more gears.

You can view the specifications of each bike from the links - does it look like the Ridgeback 1.0 has significantly better quality parts than the Boardman, justifying the slightly higher price? Is it worth paying the premium for the 2.0 for the same reason? I think I have discounted the 4.0 as it comes with hub gears - I have never ridden with hub gears and although I’m not against trying them, I’ve never really had a problem with traditional gears.

You probably want to know what I use the bike for - year-round commuting, which is 9 miles each way 4 days a week, mainly on roads but with a fair amount of slightly uneven gravel path. As such I don’t need the expense or weight of suspension, but a pure road bike probably wouldn’t cope (especially in winter). I also prefer the riding position of a hybrid. I like to ride fast though so want a high ratio on the top gears. I tend to power up hills so not worried about the lower gears/climbing ability. In fact I am tempted by a single- or even fixed-gear but in reality I’m not fit enough for that yet (and there is one very steep hill on my route that I do need gears for).

So, bike-riding dopers - can you help?

2

Difficult to find significant differences between the two. For my money, the Ridgeback has the tighter looking geometry with a shorter wheelbase - something I prefer in a bike. Upgrading to the 2.0 would give you carbon forks which may make the front end feel lighter but also more twitchy.

I actually love the clean look of the 4.0. I think my next bike will be the type with flat bars and an internal gear hub.

At nearly 25lb, I’m a little surprised at how portly these bikes are, even for commuters.

3

The Rigdeback 4.0 is only an 8-speed. If you live where it’s mostly flat it could be a great option as the internal 8-speed is much less maintenance than a derailleur equipped bike. However if you have hills or plan on going on longer rides, you’ll want more gears.

The Boardman is more of a flat bar road bike. It also doesn’t have the widest gear range. If you plan on riding where there aren’t too many steep hills, it would be fine.

The Ridgeback 1.0 and 2.0 have gears that would allow you to climb very steep hills plus carry a lot of gear if you would plan on taking it on a tour. The 2.0 has a carbon fork which should make for a nicer ride plus somewhat better components. Plus it’s a little lighter than the 1.0. Is the 2.0 worth the extra £150? That’s up to you, but I’d pay it.

I believe in supporting my LBS. If something goes wrong with the bike, the mechanics at the LBS probably can fix it faster and better than at some big box store. Therefore I’d go with the Ridgeback 2.0 or 1.0.

4

There are a few differences I can see, I will try to address them in a pretty systematic way.

Broadly speaking, the frames are fairly similar from what I can tell.

The first thing that jumps out tho me is that for components you are choosing between either Shimano on the Ridgeback, or SRAM on the Boardman. Based on that alone I would lean in favor of the Ridgeback. However, I have seen people get into flame wars many times over the SRAM/Shimano question. After years of working on bikes, I have just found the shimano componentry to just wear in better and last longer. I also like the fact that it is all Shimano on the Ridgeback, whereas there is a mostly SRAM group mixed with an FSA crank, and presumably FSA bottom bracket (crank bearings if you are not familiar with the terminology). These combinations rarely perform as well as when the group is all one component manufacturer. It will work, but usually is not quite as crisp, and in my experience I was endlessly encountering Novara bikes with mixed componentry that caused difficulty in downshifting. Also, FSA bottom brackets at this level tend to fail sooner than expected in my experience. Lastly, the 2.0 has a Deore derailleur(gear shifter), these are very nice and also durable - I have one okn my bike.

For the wheels, the 2.0 has Alex DH19 Rims - these are going to be far superior in terms of durability than what is on the other 2 bikes. The R450 and DH19 are both extremely common rims on the market that come stock on many bikes - working in a city shop, I would say my customers would get at least 3x the life out of a DH19 rim.

Of the top of my head the last thing I see is that the Ridgeback has a carbon fork. the main advantage of this would be road vibration dampening.

I could go on, but I’ll just stop here. For the amount and type of riding you are doing the Ridgeback 2.0 is the best option - by far IMHO. If you get one of the other two, you will probably end up spending more on maintenance and have poorer ride quality.

Just my 2 cents.

5

Do you mean your employer has stopped cycle to work? The Scheme is still going overall isn’t it - used it myself a month or two back. Shame it’s not an option - if you’re in the 40% tax bracket you should go large and get one for £999.99.

Don’t think there’s an awful lot in it between the two hybrids, but I’d be surprised if the boardman wasn’t the ‘better’ bike in terms of the frame and spec sheet - along with tribans (the decathlon brand) they rule that price point, massive buying power that can really squeeze the margins.

The genesis day one is in a different street to either of those two and costs the same, just to throw another option at you.

6

The boardman is definately not the “better” of the two when compared to the Ridgeback 2.0, it’s not even worth getting into a discussions about because if you compare the spec sheet of the 2 models and you cannot see that the 2.0 has significantly better components, then you are not knowledgable enough in this area to have a valid opinion. Sorry to sound a little harsh on this, but the differences here are not hiar splitting nitpicky differences. Compared to the 1.0, I’d say possibly you may have a reasonble basis for saying the components are of similar quality, but even with that I think it’s probably a stretch to say better.

Also, I heartily disagree with your assumptions about pricing in the specialty bicycle market - but that could be a whole other thread.

7

Obv comparing to the 1.0 - the 2.0 is 200 quid more expensive.

Have you ever ridden a boardman bike, or a triban? If you haven’t, then there’s a bit of work to do before you can disagree with me. Their introduction had a massive impact on the bike market here in the UK - previously the big chain stores just sold bike-shaped objects (BSOs) like they do in the US. That is no longer the case, and the value of these brands is very hard to compete with (esp on entry / mid level stuff).

8

Oh, I don’t know about that.

Here in the US there are on-line discount bike stores that carry a pretty competitive and in many cases superior product for much less than retail on comparable models. For example, these folks.

They have been around for years. Their Motobecane line is particulary nice, IMO.

ETA: Or are these boardman bikes sold in brick & mortar stores in the UK? Sorry, I’m not sure I understand in what way they’ve had an impact on the market.

9

Of the Ridgebacks, I only looked at the Flight 2.0 since that’s what you said you’ve ridden. Looks like it weighs the same as the Boardman, but has carbon forks, which is should make for a nicer ride. I kind of like the matte green, too.

Nine miles each way isn’t a crazy commute, but doing it 4 days a week you might as well spend up and get the superior bike.

10

Great responses so far, many thanks.

Hmm. I quite like feeling a bit “stretched out” when I ride (i.e. the longer the crossbar, the better). I got that feeling with the Boardman, not so much with the Ridgeback from what I remember. Also, I don’t want the front end to be twitchy.

Well, they are entry level really - I think you have to spend a lot more, or get a road bike, for a significant weight reduction.

My commute has a huge hill in the middle of it but I think I would cope with an 8 speed. My current ride has no rear gears below 5 as the spring in the shifter is broken (it’s my Dad’s old Ridgeback and is over 15 years old) and I cope with that OK. Sometimes I even manage to complete my commute just using gears 19, 20, and 21.

I do, but as above I’m confident I’m fit enough to cope with this.

Thanks, I am leaning this way too. I don’t plan on doing any tours but I may want to attach one of those kid trailer seats, which presumably will put more stress on the frame and components.

Absolutely - for the record, even if I bought a bike elsewhere I would still get it serviced at my LBS.

Excellent, many thanks. I think you (and others) have convinced me to spend the extra on the Ridgeback Flight 2.0. I do ride pretty fast and hard, on busy roads, so will occasionally have to hit a drain cover/pothole and I guess the pricier wheels will stand up a bit better to that sort of abuse.

Yes, Cycle to Work is still going but the employer is not offering it at the moment, annoyingly. That Genesis is a single speed so while nice, is not quite practical for me at the moment.

Bonus question - is there an easy way of telling which bike will have the highest ratio “final drive”? In other words, in top gear which bike will give me the most speed at the same rpm?

11

Look at the numbers for the largest cog up front and the smallest at rear. You want the greatest range between the two for max mashing power.

12

Oh, and if you go with the Ridgeback, I think you should insist that they change the “Go Further” label on the bike frame to say “Go Farther”. Because you may very well go farther on a Ridgeback but I doubt that you’ll go further in the figurative sense. And anyway, I don’t think they make bike computers that measure that sort of thing. Though I wonder if going further burns more calories.

13

Sorry to double post, but looking at the specs I think I have partially answered my own question - looks like the Ridgeback 2.0 has a ratio of 48/11 on top gear, which is 4.36, whereas the Boardman has 50/11 for 4.54 - not a lot in it. Anyone know how much difference that might make on the road - is it barely noticeable, or significant?

14

About 4% difference. Probably not significant enough to matter, unless you’re a B+ rider.

15

Oh please, your response is irrelevant to the question at hand which is quality of components on the bike. Unless putting lower end components on a Boardman magically reconfigures them into higher quality components then they are still lower level, lower performing components.

16

Extra £50 gets you the boardman hybrid team, deadcat.

Better components :slight_smile:

17

This model does have significantly better components than the Boardman we were discussing previously - I think you can make a valid argument that the componentry on this is comparable or better than what is on the Ridgeback 2.0. I still do not understand your reasoning behind your statement the first boardman model had better components than the models we were comparing it to.

As compared to the 2.0:

  • The rims are a little better Alex319’s are very durable, they would be considered better than DH19’s - but the debate would be about how much better.
  • The zaffiro tires are are pretty crappy and not great for commuting, and are much worse for that duty than the con ti’s on the Ridgeback.
  • SRAM Apex is nothing to really write home about, it is the lowest level road group sram offers.

I would still recommend the Rigdeback though. I think the Ridgeback is more purpose built for what you want to do, and The componentry is solid - there is no skimming on important for commuting things like tires, rims etc. I especially like the fact that they use a deore derailleur - I think these should be on every commuter bike, they are far less finicky than the SRAM Apex.

So far, Boardman does not really impress or unimpress me. They are doing the same things that many second tier bike brands do with their spec - put one brand name shifter and derailleur, mixed with a different crank, cheapest tires possible, cheap saddle. I have nothing against doing this perse, nor do I fault companies for putting bling where it will get noticed most, and skimming where it gets noticed least. But the question comes down to what is the best bike for you. And in this case the answer still seems obvious - get the bike built right for the kind of riding you intend to do - there is no sense spending an extra 50 for a bike that has some extra bling somewhere but not where you really need it. And on top of all that you get the added bonus of establishing a relationship with an LBS - which has a value you will surely come to realize if you end up riding the amount you intend to.

18

Thanks again to you both for your helpful comments. Until I clicked the link I read the “extra £50” as being on top of the £500 for the Comp, I now see you meant an extra £50 on top of the £700 for the 2.0. Which is fine, I could still stretch to that.

I should say at this point that I already plan to replace whatever the standard tyres are with puncture-resistant ones, and I will be swapping out the pedals for the clip-pedals I already have. I may well change the saddle also, depending of course on how I get on with the standard one.

I must say I am tempted by the Boardman Team - it has a 10 speed on the back which should result in an even higher top gear, 2 cogs on the front should be more than enough for the style of riding I do. It also has hydraulic disc brakes - I understand the performance of mechanical vs hydraulic discs is much the same, but hydraulics should require less frequent servicing (albeit it is more fiddly - and hence more expensive too, for someone like me who is incapable of doing it themselves). However, any opinions on that issue are also welcome. The Boardman is also a couple of pounds lighter than the Ridgeback. On the other hand, I’m inclined to agree with Mr Nylock’s analysis. Does the extra information I have added change your opinion at all?

Even if I get the Boardman, I will still use my LBS for servicing, parts, accessories, including buying the new tyres and mudguards for the bike.

One thing is certain - I’m glad I didn’t rush into buying the Boardman Comp, even if I had got it on Cycle to Work!

19

Too late to edit - found a very good review of the Boardman here. Another factor is that there was recently a 15% off sale on Boardmans, that would make it under £650 instead of £750 - I may wait to see if there is another one soon (it could tip the balance in the Boardman’s favour, perhaps?).

20

The 2.0 and the Boardman both have hydraulic brakes(IIRC) if that makes any difference. The Boardman is a little more speed focused(as was already mentioned upthread by someone else) . I personally don’t like SRAM double tap, I just think Shimano is easier to use and better from an ergonomic standpoint - but that is purely personal preference.

On the whole both of these models seem pretty solid and up to the task, it’s just a matter of what personal features you like better IMHO.