Consumers': Cheap bikes are not bargains

On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:48:41 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

A little shameless copyright infringement here. Whether or not you
like their stance on skid-lids ... we have to applaud this, no?
====
Cheap bikes are not bargains

By the way, I would never stoop so low as to publish, without
permission, CR's top three ROAD bike picks, but ... suffice to say ...
most of us would at least say, "Yeah ... I could see that...."

Interesting anecdotes, though:

1) I read an article, by Joe KLEIN, about a trip that he took to New
Zealand, to tour the factory of a clothing firm called REVE. Joe
liked the tour so much that, as he was leaving, he gave the founder of
the company a high FIVE;

2) Did anybody see the movie, My GIANT? I think it had Billy Crystal
in it. He had a billboard made that said, roughly, "OH, SEE OUR
giant," or something like that. The film was a COMPOSITE of THREE
other films about giants.

3) Another box-office GIANT was a smaller version of the same
COMPOSITE film. From memory, it won ONE academy award of its own.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Neil Brooks <[email hidden]> writes:

(Apparently from a Consumer Reports article?)

Quoted message said:

Cheap bikes are not bargains

Forsooth, this is truth.
....

Quoted message said:

Adults should consider cheaper bikes from a department store only for
the most casual use, and stick with a front-suspension model, which is
likely to be better than a cheap full-suspension bike.

Actually, no suspension at all (rigid fork) would be preferable --
/if/ such a department store bike can be found. I've seen a few
advertised. Very few.

Apart from cheesy suspensions, my main criticism of cheap department
store bikes isn't their weight, or their questionable assembly, or
their size, or the branding of their componentry. It's the use of
low-grade steel in certain critical parts, such as brake arms, stems,
handlebars and cranks. Parts of which the mfgrs are so embarassed,
they have to paint them black, even to the extent of painting-over
huge gobs of pin-holed welding bead, like at the stem/handlebar
interface.

I think these bikes are meant to become rusty.

Nylon bushings instead of decent ball bearings? Nisht gefloygen.

AFAIC, the only thing commendable about cheap department store bikes is
the durability of their hi-tens frames. Maybe they can eventually be
recycled into railroad rails, cheap can openers or surgical instruments.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Neil Brooks <[email hidden]> writes:

(Apparently from a Consumer Reports article?)

Quoted message said:

Cheap bikes are not bargains

Forsooth, this is truth.
...

Quoted message said:

Adults should consider cheaper bikes from a department store only for
the most casual use, and stick with a front-suspension model, which is
likely to be better than a cheap full-suspension bike.

Actually, no suspension at all (rigid fork) would be preferable --
/if/ such a department store bike can be found. I've seen a few
advertised. Very few.

Apart from cheesy suspensions, my main criticism of cheap department
store bikes isn't their weight, or their questionable assembly, or
their size, or the branding of their componentry. It's the use of
low-grade steel in certain critical parts, such as brake arms, stems,
handlebars and cranks. Parts of which the mfgrs are so embarassed,
they have to paint them black, even to the extent of painting-over
huge gobs of pin-holed welding bead, like at the stem/handlebar
interface.

Tragically, you are describing the second-worst type of components.
There exist cranks where the body is covered in a thick, structural
layer of plastic, probably because the core of the crank is a not-very
large piece of steel, maybe a stamped plate.

This style of construction is also used in brake levers.

Quoted message said:

I think these bikes are meant to become rusty.

Nylon bushings instead of decent ball bearings? Nisht gefloygen.

AFAIC, the only thing commendable about cheap department store bikes is
the durability of their hi-tens frames. Maybe they can eventually be
recycled into railroad rails, cheap can openers or surgical instruments.

A wonderful trend which is not given enough regard is the extent to
which these bikes now use aluminum wheels and reasonably workable
V-brakes. It's not universal yet, but I see many more aluminum rims than
steel ones on these bikes.

These two features mean that the brakes on these bikes have a shot at
working, unlike a stamped single-pivot brake pushing against a steel rim.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Can we add this to the FAQ?

Quoted message said:

Cheap bikes are not bargains

.....

--Karen D.

Veloise said:

Can we add this to the FAQ?

Quoted message said:

Cheap bikes are not bargains

....

Seconded.

-Luigi

Luigi de Guzman said:

Veloise said:

Can we add this to the FAQ?

Quoted message said:

Cheap bikes are not bargains

....

Seconded.

-Luigi

Aw, and I got most of my mileage on my Huffy that lasted for almost ten
years. $85.00/ten years = $8.50/year.
Bill Baka
Oh yeah, add about $50.00 of parts and tires.

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Luigi de Guzman said:

Veloise said:

Can we add this to the FAQ?

> Cheap bikes are not bargains
....

Seconded.

-Luigi

Aw, and I got most of my mileage on my Huffy that lasted for almost ten
years. $85.00/ten years = $8.50/year.
Bill Baka
Oh yeah, add about $50.00 of parts and tires.

There are always exceptions. I know people who run in Chuck Taylors, but
most people prefer to run in a shoe designed for running. I would prefer to
ride a bicycle which was designed to be ridden over a bicycle which was
designed to look cool.

Gooserider said:

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Luigi de Guzman said:

On Sat, 20 May 2006 07:41:04 -0700, Veloise wrote:

> Can we add this to the FAQ?
>
>> Cheap bikes are not bargains
> ....

Seconded.

-Luigi

Aw, and I got most of my mileage on my Huffy that lasted for almost ten
years. $85.00/ten years = $8.50/year.
Bill Baka
Oh yeah, add about $50.00 of parts and tires.

There are always exceptions. I know people who run in Chuck Taylors, but
most people prefer to run in a shoe designed for running. I would prefer to
ride a bicycle which was designed to be ridden over a bicycle which was
designed to look cool.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Come on guys, you're all biased! We know that they are not, in theory, bargains. That's not such a profound statement. But what matters is the USER and how he cares for the bike! I have a Schwinn High Timber Mountain Bike, $149.99 free shipping, Amazon.Com. Bargain, schmargain! Who cares? At the end of a ride I bring it in to a warm dust free place, I clean and dust here and there, oil and grease here and there, check my tire pressure, and off I go th next day for a trouble free ride and I know it will outlive me...I'm 79! So why all the baloney.....to see your post in large type? Pshaw!

I agree with Mikie, that is baloney.

ko57 said:

I agree with Mikie, that is baloney.

Who? What? HUH?!?

Neil Brooks said:

A little shameless copyright infringement here. Whether or not you
like their stance on skid-lids ... we have to applaud this, no?
====
Cheap bikes are not bargains

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Still, if your budget allows, we'd recommend that you buy one of the
$300 comfort bikes in the Ratings. You'll get a lot more bike for the
buck.

Link recently posted on uk.rec.bicycles.
A more wordy version of the same sentiments, from the view of an LBS
who ends up trying to fix up the d**m things:

http://www.southcoastbikes.co.uk/Articles.asp?article=NO_BSO

Regards,

bookieb.

are you posting/reading from google?

Google parses quoted usenet text very well. Unfortunately, the parser
is not as smart as some posters are careless, who neglect to separate
their comments from the quoted text properly. Thus, on Google's
archive, you see a lot of "blank" posts--which are really posts with
quoted portions ( lines starting with ">"😉 hidden.

-Luigi

Quoted message said:

are you posting/reading from google?

Who?

Quoted message said:

Google parses quoted usenet text very well. Unfortunately, the parser
is not as smart as some posters are careless, who neglect to separate
their comments from the quoted text properly. Thus, on Google's
archive, you see a lot of "blank" posts--which are really posts with
quoted portions ( lines starting with ">"😉 hidden.

POTD.

Gooserider said:

... I would prefer to
ride a bicycle which was designed to be ridden over a bicycle which was
designed to look cool.

Third category: A bike that was designed to be sold for $45 at
Wal-Mart. It doesn't look cool, it has a seat that makes ShelBroCo's
Real Man Saddle look positively inviting, and the rumors of its being
equipped with brakes are greatly exaggerated. I have seen these
things a lot lately, primarily under people on their way to and from
low-paying jobs and labor pool pickup sites. It's not uncommon to see
the day-labor pickup vans loaded with equal volumes of bike and worker
when they pull away. Is such a bike fun to ride? Not to me. Is it
better than walking? Apparently yes, to those people who are using
them. And having looked at the tires on a few, it's apparent that
they are getting a lot more use than might be suspected.

I keep wondering when I'll see the first one that has hydraulics and a
subwoofer-equipped stereo.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

These guys would be riding cheap roadsters, if such a thing could be
had for $45, new, anywhere in America.

The American market uses bikes as toys, and so *mart bikes are built as
such. These guys see them as transport, and use them as such. Are
they great bikes? No. Would your average jornalero probably be better
off on a better bike? Yes. Can he afford the cash outlay? Probably
not.

-Luigi

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:58:04 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[---]

Quoted message said:

I keep wondering when I'll see the first one that has hydraulics

How common are hydraulic brakes in the U.S.?

hydraulics, yo. as in bouncing-lowrider hydraulics.

Think Dr. Dre's '64 Impala in the "Let Me Ride" video:

http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/ultimaterides/music-drdre.asp