Second hand road bike under $300

[Budeman]

I am having a look at the Cadex this arvo - given its an older bike is there anything I need to look out for?

AFAIK the cadex is a carbon tube bonded to alloy lugs. Thoroughly check the frame for damage, check the bonds for signs of repair. Some people wont touch old carbon with a barge pole, but other recognise that it is still functional if in good condition.

Check operation of all parts, especially the shifters. Make sure the rims are running fairly smooth and true and the brake tracks aren't too worn. It might need new bar tape and brake pads (cheap and easy enough to do at home), but have a look to be sure.

Looking at the pics of it and online this one is the ALR so aluminium rather than carbon I think. Will be sure to check out for everything you have mentioned though thanks.

[koshari]

also just keep in mind the cadex has downtube shifters, whilst there is nothing wrong with them they can pose a bit of a challenge shifting at times where your hands are required on the bars.

you may consider moving the controls up to the bars but this will be an added expense as shifters are generally one of the more expensive components on a bike.

[Kronos]

A bike for under $300 depends on who you know and what you know and being lucky and being in the right place at the right time. Among other things, sometimes being a standard size around 54, or being an obscure size (excessively tall or short if you can ride a 50 or 52, or something above 56 that helps also.)

You can get some late model bikes anywhere from around 2004 to 2012 in your price bracket that will be modern and do a job. A lot of is relying upon either being able to know how to buy a bike in good condition and what to look for, or alternatively knowing how to service old bikes.

Steel vs. alu vs. carbon: I've seen some carbon bikes such as the Giant Defy fall under $500 in an M or ML, but you have to be Johnny on the spot. Then there is occasionally an early Canondale CAAD such as a CAAD5, or Giant OCR for under $500. There are the more obscure things such as GT road bike GT ZR 1.0 and 2.0 (Lotto team bikes from around 2001) that have fallen under $300 recently. Or there is steel bikes from the 80s and 90s (but you really have to know what you're looking at)

The difference between steel vs, carbon, vs aluminum, in the grand scheme of things unless you're a featherweight a steel bike or a carbon bike will give you the same ride stiffness, an aluminum bike will be the toughest to ride. The steel bike will be the heaviest, but with carbon forks, seat post, bars, etc, the difference for most riders in steel vs carbon will be about the difference of 1 gear and unless you're getting into cyclocross where you have to carry your bike, none of this matters.

It just depends what your comfortable riding. There are lots of options, and some of them under $300 or $500 at the most. Keep an eye out on Gumtree and you will find something that suits eventually. I just picked up a mid 90s Giant Kronos steel bike for the purposes of rebuilding it with a new groupset and rear hub. The bike cost me $50 on Gumtree, the rest is either scrounging parts off my older brother, or finding cheap hubs and cassettes in sizes people don't use much anymore.

I'm setting myself a budget of around $500 to build a competitive and modern road bike with a steel frame, but I have some knowledge and a lot of helping hands. Many hands make light work and I have access to a free bike mechanic a new groupset, tyres, and etc, so most of that is going towards a new rear hub and so on to fit the groupset, and some odd ball 26mm bars.

Given you're 167 tall I would assume a 54 would be too big, that's for a guy my height are 175 or 178. I would be looking at a 50 or 52, in that size you should be able to find lots of cheap bikes that kids have been upgrading from. You could run 650B rather than 700C wheels and a bigger frame but you will still most likely be stretched in terms of the length of your body.

I would honestly stay away from the cheap Merida, Avanti, Scott, Cell, etc... bikes in this bracket I've looked. Most of these are entry level bikes that were barely worth anything in the first place. Go for a mid level $1500 MSRP bike that has fallen into your price bracket such as Giant, Trek, Specialised, Canondale etc and you will get a better quality bike. You can get some pretty competitive bikes for $300.

[bychosis]

Merida, avanti, Scott are all equivalent brands to giant, specialised, trek, cannondale. Cell is a local (Aussie). bike shop brand that provides decent quality bikes that are good value for money without the brand name tax.

AFAIK Merida and Giant make the vast majority of quality frames on this planet out of a few factories and sell them to other brands.

[Kronos]

I don't know, I'd rather have a cheaper older Trek or Cannondale than a Scott or Avanti. Most of them in the $300 bracket now that I have seen were bikes that worth less than $1000 new, and you don't get much quality in that price bracket where as if you get something even like a CAAD5 or earlier OCR you get a bit more quality for your money. GT road bikes aren't even really a thing but by then they were even coming out of the same factory as everything else and not American built.

At the end of the day I might just be a brand snob. There is some truth in getting what was a $2000 bike in an under $500 price bracket though. Between now and 15 years ago bike development has not changed that much especially with aluminum bikes made out of the same material. Carbon yes... But I probably wouldn't buy a carbon bike even though I have seen the occasional BMC, or Giant Defy etc for $500.

I don't trust carbon fibre bikes. A good steel or aluminum frame will last a lifetime of riding with proper care, I've seen a BMC team bike that was ridden normally by my brother with a catastrophic crack develop in less than 6months, maybe you'll change your bike in a year or three.

I don't get it, people want whiz bang carbon bikes with disc brakes and don't use them, they will probably never ride a Hors catégorie climb, they will never have to probably carry their bike in this case if they're doing tri rather than cyclocross, but they want a whiz bang bike where in reality any old frame produced in the last 30years will be more than good enough.

The difference unless your into cyclocross or are a mountain goat is trivial.

[battler2]

I don't know, I'd rather have a cheaper older Trek or Cannondale than a Scott or Avanti. Most of them in the $300 bracket now that I have seen were bikes that worth less than $1000 new, and you don't get much quality in that price bracket where as if you get something even like a CAAD5 or earlier OCR you get a bit more quality for your money. GT road bikes aren't even really a thing but by then they were even coming out of the same factory as everything else and not American built.

true, but you don't know what's happened to it in the mean time. most people don't know how to properly inspect a bike/frame. and stress fatigue over time can prop up while your riding, and not for the 10 years the previous owner was.

At the end of the day I might just be a brand snob. There is some truth in getting what was a $2000 bike in an under $500 price bracket though. Between now and 15 years ago bike development has not changed that much especially with aluminum bikes made out of the same material. Carbon yes... But I probably wouldn't buy a carbon bike even though I have seen the occasional BMC, or Giant Defy etc for $500.

I don't trust carbon fibre bikes. A good steel or aluminum frame will last a lifetime of riding with proper care, I've seen a BMC team bike that was ridden normally by my brother with a catastrophic crack develop in less than 6months, maybe you'll change your bike in a year or three.

carbon when made properly is significantly stronger in certain places than alu/steel. takes a lot more torque for it to snap, but when it does, it fails catastrophically. however where it is not reinforced it can be damaged easier, leading to further failure. so it's like a strong fragile item. tough where you need it, weak where you don't.

I don't get it, people want whiz bang carbon bikes with disc brakes and don't use them, they will probably never ride a Hors catégorie climb, they will never have to probably carry their bike in this case if they're doing tri rather than cyclocross, but they want a whiz bang bike where in reality any old frame produced in the last 30years will be more than good enough.

The difference unless your into cyclocross or are a mountain goat is trivial.

yeah, but they will surely have some idiot cut them off, or slam on the brakes in the wet at speed where they NEED good braking power at some point. or pedestrians, or dogs, or other riders...

[Kronos]

Yeah, I've seen a guy swear till he was blue in the face that his anodised CAAD5 didn't have structural damage where you could no longer see under the paint. It twas where the top tube met the head tube, and the guy was telling me when I was inspecting it for a mate that the damage was not structural I've also seen my brothers BMC snap its seat stays catastrophically from normal commuter type riding in Brisbane. On that note I've also seen a guy on Gumtree trying to sell a dented BMC bike that swore it wasn't structural either Carbon doesn't dent it cracks.

I get that carbon is both strong and light, but most people don't really need either of these things especially for what seems like a younger rider here who is trying to get into tri on a budget. If I were closer I'd offer my services, but I'd only suggest getting a mate to come along that knows something about bikes. There are some real bargains under $500 you just have to be Johnny on the spot when they come up because you'll be guaranteed that if you live in a major population area they'll be gone tomorrow.