I was looking at the usa walmart site and couldn't help noticing the price of their bikes!



M

Martin Wilson

Guest
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4178&lr=B&path=0:4125:4178

Loads of different styles of bikes and unbelievable low prices. Some
as low as £34 approx with lifetime warranties.

If only uk walmart stores (asda) carried the same range and similar
pricing.

I know a lot of these bikes aren't great but they also do some well
equipped stuff too.

Seems every bike has a quick stand fitted and they have more
catagories of bikes too including beach cruiser type bikes (classic
retro usa styling I suppose). Some of these have nothing on the
handlebars apart from grips. I'm so used to gears and brakes being on
them it would seem wierd to use them for nothing else than steering.

Strange that the range of bikes sold in the usa is so different to the
range of bikes sold in most uk outlets which are basically mountain
bikes or racers/tourers.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Martin Wilson
('[email protected]') wrote:

> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4178&lr=B&path=0
3A4125%3A4178
>
> Loads of different styles of bikes and unbelievable low prices. Some
> as low as £34 approx with lifetime warranties.
>
> If only uk walmart stores (asda) carried the same range and similar
> pricing.

[yawn] even I am not going to rise to this troll.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?
 
"Martin Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4178&lr=B&path=0:4125:4178
>
> Loads of different styles of bikes and unbelievable low prices. Some
> as low as £34 approx with lifetime warranties.
>
> If only uk walmart stores (asda) carried the same range and similar
> pricing.
>
> I know a lot of these bikes aren't great but they also do some well
> equipped stuff too.
>
> Seems every bike has a quick stand fitted and they have more
> catagories of bikes too including beach cruiser type bikes (classic
> retro usa styling I suppose). Some of these have nothing on the
> handlebars apart from grips. I'm so used to gears and brakes being on
> them it would seem wierd to use them for nothing else than steering.
>
> Strange that the range of bikes sold in the usa is so different to the
> range of bikes sold in most uk outlets which are basically mountain
> bikes or racers/tourers.
>
>

Have you seen the bikes they sell in Wal-Mart ? - I would guess that the 34
quid example is the one that I saw with plastic (and I mean plastic, not
some resin type composite) Vee brakes I saw in a store in the US.

Closest I have seen here is a full susser "mountain" bike in the store
formerly known as Safeway for about £59 - the chap with our LBS has great
difficulty in getting the morons who bought them to understand that repairs
cost, in many cases, more than the original machine.

Bit of a generalisation but most cycling in the US is on traffic-free paths
and in very short distances - thus a "throw-away" Wal-Mart bike does the
job.

RG
 
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:43:47 +0100, Martin Wilson
<[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4178&lr=B&path=0:4125:4178
>
> Loads of different styles of bikes and unbelievable low prices. Some
> as low as £34 approx with lifetime warranties.
>
> If only uk walmart stores (asda) carried the same range and similar
> pricing.
>
> I know a lot of these bikes aren't great but they also do some well
> equipped stuff too.
>
> Seems every bike has a quick stand fitted and they have more
> catagories of bikes too including beach cruiser type bikes (classic
> retro usa styling I suppose). Some of these have nothing on the
> handlebars apart from grips. I'm so used to gears and brakes being on
> them it would seem wierd to use them for nothing else than steering.
>
> Strange that the range of bikes sold in the usa is so different to the
> range of bikes sold in most uk outlets which are basically mountain
> bikes or racers/tourers.
>
>

I find the description of a "high tensity" frame quite pleasing... :)

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...t=4171&path=0:4171:61903:61904:4180:4183:5304

--
|C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
Remove the bars to contact me
 
Terry D said:
Chris Davies wrote:


>
> I find the description of a "high tensity" frame quite pleasing... :)
>
...... and why do they recommend buying a lock for it?

To make it too heavy to pedal away ;-)

OTOH many of the French Hypermarket bikes are pretty good value; much of mine is still going strong 5 yrs later albeit on a different frame.
Click to expand...
 
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:35:33 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Martin Wilson
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4178&lr=B&path=0
>3A4125%3A4178
>>
>> Loads of different styles of bikes and unbelievable low prices. Some
>> as low as £34 approx with lifetime warranties.
>>
>> If only uk walmart stores (asda) carried the same range and similar
>> pricing.
>
>[yawn] even I am not going to rise to this troll.

Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
way does this post upset/anger you? I noticed walmart had very cheap
bikes and the range of bikes was different to those sold in the uk and
mentioned it. I have absolutely no idea why this offends you or you
find it more boring than other posts. I honestly thought it was an
interesting post to continue the debate raised in the posting "Why are
bikes so dear in the uk?" I'm sorry it doesn't get your approval for
some reason and is not interesting to you but I'm curious why you have
to claim I'm a troll for what I thought was a completely innocent
posting?
 
Martin Wilson [email protected] opined the following...
> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
> way does this post upset/anger you? I noticed walmart had very cheap
> bikes and the range of bikes was different to those sold in the uk and
> mentioned it. I have absolutely no idea why this offends you or you
> find it more boring than other posts. I honestly thought it was an
> interesting post to continue the debate raised in the posting "Why are
> bikes so dear in the uk?" I'm sorry it doesn't get your approval for
> some reason and is not interesting to you but I'm curious why you have
> to claim I'm a troll for what I thought was a completely innocent
> posting?

Probably because you started the last thread on the value of cheap
bikes, in which despite the (learned) opinions of many members of the
group, you argued that they were a Good Thing. To a casual observer your
OP was a continuation of the same theme but offering Walmart bikes as
apposed to those seen on eBay.

Once again, people will mention that there is a minimum cost associated
with component & frame engineering, and getting a bike of quality this
cheap cannot be done simply with economies of scale. Thus, the bikes on
offer are an example of a throwaway commodity and are probably unlikely
to either last very long, or offer a suitable replacement for motorised
short journeys.

Given the throwaway culture in the states, it is likely that servicing
will not be an issue. Is this really the direction you'd like to see us
take over here? (Hint: We're most of the way already!)

Jon
 
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:42:24 +1000, MartinMM
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>
>Terry D Wrote:
>> Chris Davies wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I find the description of a "high tensity" frame quite pleasing...
>> :)
>> >
>> ...... and why do they recommend buying a lock for it?

To double theer sales revenue per bike purchase, of course! :)


>>
>> To make it too heavy to pedal away ;-)
>>
>> OTOH many of the French Hypermarket bikes are pretty good value; much
>> of mine is still going strong 5 yrs later albeit on a different frame.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
in message <[email protected]>, Martin Wilson
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:35:33 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>in message <[email protected]>, Martin Wilson
>>('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4178&lr=B&path=0
>>3A4125%3A4178
>>>
>>> Loads of different styles of bikes and unbelievable low prices. Some
>>> as low as £34 approx with lifetime warranties.
>>>
>>> If only uk walmart stores (asda) carried the same range and similar
>>> pricing.
>>
>>[yawn] even I am not going to rise to this troll.
>
> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
> way does this post upset/anger you?

There are indeed extremely cheap bikes around. We know this. We've
discussed it to death, over and over again. As most bikes in Britain
are bought to be put at the back of the garden shed as rust collectors,
they can probably be described as 'fit for the purpose'. They aren't
fit for any other purpose, for example riding.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.
 
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:35:07 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
>>
>> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
>> way does this post upset/anger you?
>
>There are indeed extremely cheap bikes around. We know this. We've
>discussed it to death, over and over again. As most bikes in Britain
>are bought to be put at the back of the garden shed as rust collectors,
>they can probably be described as 'fit for the purpose'. They aren't
>fit for any other purpose, for example riding.

The question was why do you accuse me of being a troll. Not only does
that not answer it but you've got some twaddle in it about people
choosing to buy low cost bikes just to put in their sheds and never
using them as if that was their intention when buying them. I'm pretty
sure these people did intend to ride them even if they ended up being
disappointed with them and simply stored in the shed or garage. Not
that I believe that for all purchasers of such bikes as I see such
cheap bikes on the road everyday. Even cheap bikes that are many years
old and still actively used.
 
Martin Wilson wrote:

> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
> way does this post upset/anger you?

Well, in the not /too/ distant past it was discussed at some length
exactly why these bikes probably represent a false economy, and I seem
to remember your name cropped up a lot as about the only voice
suggesting otherwise. You may simply refuse to believe what pretty much
everyone else said in those threads but even so it seems pretty silly to
persist in posting variations.

Very cheap, seemingly well equipped bikes are very cheap for a simple
reason: very little money has been spent on them. Mechanical
engineering needs money spent on it to be good. Put these two facts
together and you come back with the clear conclusion that they're
basically cack. And will continue to be. That £34 worth of dreck from
Wal-Mart is "better value" than twice the price for similar at Asda is
questionable because the net worth of the bike is basically nothing in
the longer term in any case. You'd be better off not buying it, even if
it was 34 /pence/, because that would be 34p you could put towards
something better.

And again I will emphasise that a bike is more than a list of
components. One frame is not the same as another. One set of V brakes
is not the same as another. One wheel is not the same as another. You
cannot tell much useful about how good a bike is, and hence how good
value it is, just by looking at a list of bullet points. I have yet to
see a low cost bike that was any good, and it's also the case AFAICT in
the US that the most popular bikes by sale are supermarket specials that
get used once or twice and then left in the back of a garage. They're
quite genuinely *not much good*. Would you like me to repeat that a few
more times, or can you just use Google?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Martin Wilson wrote:

> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
> way does this post upset/anger you?

Well, in the not /too/ distant past it was discussed at some length
exactly why these bikes probably represent a false economy, and I seem
to remember your name cropped up a lot as about the only voice
suggesting otherwise. You may simply refuse to believe what pretty much
everyone else said in those threads but even so it seems pretty silly to
persist in posting variations.

Very cheap, seemingly well equipped bikes are very cheap for a simple
reason: very little money has been spent on them. Mechanical
engineering needs money spent on it to be good. Put these two facts
together and you come back with the clear conclusion that they're
basically cack. And will continue to be. That £34 worth of dreck from
Wal-Mart is "better value" than twice the price for similar at Asda is
questionable because the net worth of the bike is basically nothing in
the longer term in any case. You'd be better off not buying it, even if
it was 34 /pence/, because that would be 34p you could put towards
something better.

And again I will emphasise that a bike is more than a list of
components. One frame is not the same as another. One set of V brakes
is not the same as another. One wheel is not the same as another. You
cannot tell much useful about how good a bike is, and hence how good
value it is, just by looking at a list of bullet points. I have yet to
see a low cost bike that was any good, and it's also the case AFAICT in
the US that the most popular bikes by sale are supermarket specials that
get used once or twice and then left in the back of a garage. They're
quite genuinely *not much good*. Would you like me to repeat that a few
more times, or can you just use Google?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
in message <[email protected]>, Martin Wilson
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:35:07 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In
>>> what way does this post upset/anger you?
>>
>>There are indeed extremely cheap bikes around. We know this. We've
>>discussed it to death, over and over again. As most bikes in Britain
>>are bought to be put at the back of the garden shed as rust
>>collectors, they can probably be described as 'fit for the purpose'.
>>They aren't fit for any other purpose, for example riding.
>
> The question was why do you accuse me of being a troll.

If I caused offence I'm sorry if I caused offence. But I'm not prepared
to rehash all the reasons why such bikes represent very poor value for
money indeed. If you want to know, google. Of waste your money buying
one to find out.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
 
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:28:30 +0100, Martin Wilson
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting?

Wal-Mart bikes are legendary for their epic badness. The frames are
made of an alloy of lead and depleted uranium, the components of
cheese. US riders reckon they are responsible for putting more people
off cycling than all the SUVs on the planet, and people go into bike
shops and walk out in high dudgeon because they can't buy a single one
of the bikes on display for under $100.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
> > way does this post upset/anger you?
>
> Well, in the not /too/ distant past it was discussed at some length
> exactly why these bikes probably represent a false economy, and I seem
> to remember your name cropped up a lot as about the only voice
> suggesting otherwise. You may simply refuse to believe what pretty much
> everyone else said in those threads but even so it seems pretty silly to
> persist in posting variations.

One thing that so far hasn't been mentioned is the fact that one of the
ways in which Wal-Mart can achieve these spectacular prices is by having
staggering economies of scale, and policies so grotesquely immoral that
no civilised society would permit them. Wal-Mart will happily not only
destroy local shops and stores using its effortless ability to price
them out of business, but will also destroy an entire town in the name
of profits. God knows how it treats its suppliers.

Like the MacDonald's meal that costs 99 pence, you can safely assume
that what it's made of and how it got there will explain the
unlikely-sounding price, and will put you off it completely.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
 
[email protected] (D.M. Procida) wrote in
news:1gjchvq.wkbi3h1hyq39uN%[email protected]:

> One thing that so far hasn't been mentioned is the fact that one of the
> ways in which Wal-Mart can achieve these spectacular prices is by having
> staggering economies of scale, and policies so grotesquely immoral that
> no civilised society would permit them. Wal-Mart will happily not only
> destroy local shops and stores using its effortless ability to price
> them out of business, but will also destroy an entire town in the name
> of profits. God knows how it treats its suppliers.

Just out of curiosity, which entire town has walmart destroyed? And how did
it achieve this feat?

--
Chris
 
Monkey Hanger <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (D.M. Procida) wrote in
> news:1gjchvq.wkbi3h1hyq39uN%[email protected]:
>
> > One thing that so far hasn't been mentioned is the fact that one of the
> > ways in which Wal-Mart can achieve these spectacular prices is by having
> > staggering economies of scale, and policies so grotesquely immoral that
> > no civilised society would permit them. Wal-Mart will happily not only
> > destroy local shops and stores using its effortless ability to price
> > them out of business, but will also destroy an entire town in the name
> > of profits. God knows how it treats its suppliers.
>
> Just out of curiosity, which entire town has walmart destroyed? And how did
> it achieve this feat?

Nowata, in Oklahoma. It did it by opening a huge store there, which
sucked the life out of all the local stores, with all the trade and jobs
going to the Wal-Mart store. Then Wal-Mart closed its own store, and
left behind a shell of a community. Or do a search on the terms
"Wal-Mart destroyed town":
<http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=wal-
mart+destroyed+town&btnG=Search>.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
 
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:32:55 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>Martin Wilson [email protected] opined the following...
>> Can you please explain to me why I'm a troll for this posting? In what
>> way does this post upset/anger you? I noticed walmart had very cheap
>> bikes and the range of bikes was different to those sold in the uk and
>> mentioned it. I have absolutely no idea why this offends you or you
>> find it more boring than other posts. I honestly thought it was an
>> interesting post to continue the debate raised in the posting "Why are
>> bikes so dear in the uk?" I'm sorry it doesn't get your approval for
>> some reason and is not interesting to you but I'm curious why you have
>> to claim I'm a troll for what I thought was a completely innocent
>> posting?
>
>Probably because you started the last thread on the value of cheap
>bikes, in which despite the (learned) opinions of many members of the
>group, you argued that they were a Good Thing. To a casual observer your
>OP was a continuation of the same theme but offering Walmart bikes as
>apposed to those seen on eBay.
>

Did I start a thread about cheap bikes? Because if I did its news to
me as all I can remember starting is a thread asking about resin
brakes that was hijacked into an anti cheap bike thread.

>Once again, people will mention that there is a minimum cost associated
>with component & frame engineering, and getting a bike of quality this
>cheap cannot be done simply with economies of scale. Thus, the bikes on
>offer are an example of a throwaway commodity and are probably unlikely
>to either last very long, or offer a suitable replacement for motorised
>short journeys.
>
>Given the throwaway culture in the states, it is likely that servicing
>will not be an issue. Is this really the direction you'd like to see us
>take over here? (Hint: We're most of the way already!)
>
>Jon

I'm really not advocating cheap bikes as such I was just pointing out
pricing differences between the uk and usa for basically the same
bikes. I'm pretty sure that even if people wanted any of the bikes
they'd have great problems getting walmart to post them to the uk. I
did think the beach cruiser retro american single speed bikes were of
interest though.
 

>
>If I caused offence I'm sorry if I caused offence. But I'm not prepared
>to rehash all the reasons why such bikes represent very poor value for
>money indeed. If you want to know, google. Of waste your money buying
>one to find out.

The thing that bugs me here is I mentioned the walmart site to show
pricing comparision with the uk and because they had retro american
style beach cruiser bikes that I thought looked quite interesting. At
no time did I mention I thought the bikes were good in fact I said the
opposite but I still find it interesting to see how the bike are
equipped and to see how they are priced. No doubt if I put up a post
about cyclist murdering wife I'd probably get loads of anti-murder
comments as if I'd been advocating doing in your wife or something.

However I'm sure its obvious to all I am not as anti cheap bikes as
other people as I do have one in addition to a kona model and an old
Raleigh. I do find it a shame though that many people who have cheap
bikes and come to uk.rec.cycling get a frosty reception and in the
real world many people are forced to buy cheap bikes because the rate
of bike theft in the uk is ridiculous. Something like 400,000 a year
are stolen. There are so many people that have invested in decent
bikes and appreciatted the quality and ride of them who simply have
them taken from them and decide to go for a cheap bike. I know people
who almost exclusively buy top end gear inside the house but ride
cheap bikes. A lot of dumping of bikes are those that have been stolen
and its merely disposing of a bike that has little value and is
evidence against them. My point is the decision to make do with a
cheap bike rather than spend more on a more reliable more efficient
model is often based on the fact that a) its less likely to be stolen
and b) if it is stolen only £50 is lost compared to £500. I think the
average price of bikes purchased in the uk is now quite low. I think
it was £107 in 2001 and has continued to fall but I don't know how it
currently stands. I really think you should take on board that in some
areas bike theft is so bad that a cheap bike is the only sensible
option. It doesn't matter how good a lock you have if you park a
decent bike up and leave it you will come back to just a frame and
rear wheel locked up or a thief with bolt cutters or a drill will have
taken the whole bike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Not quite what I was looking for...
Replies
0
Views
996
UK and Europe
Richard Bates
R
InThe12
The famous Tour des Trossachs was voided today
Replies
0
Views
887
UK and Europe
InThe12
InThe12
M
Why Usenet is NOT worthless! (was Re: Why Usenet is worthless!)
Replies
1
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
D
Which of you was it tonight?
Replies
9
Views
683
UK and Europe
Mark McNeill
M
S
80% of UK Laws Now Made In Brussels by the EUSSR (closure of postoffices was one of theirs)
Replies
22
Views
906
UK and Europe
Mark W
M
Top Bottom Back