Walmart bike good enough?

[Veloise]

Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® wrote:

> Of course. It was said in jest. I would buy a bike from Salvation Army
> before I buy one from Walmart.
Red Shield stores can have decent bikes. I've found Raleighs and Treks
at various thrifts.

HTH

--Karen D.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 2:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I have recently got into biking and have started commuting to work 12
> miles each way a twice a week. My bike is some heavy walmart'ish
> bike, 18-speed mountain bike, shimano gears. Honestly I have no
> issues with it, as it is tuned up correctly.
>
> However, all the websites say to avoid these bikes, why? I suppose if
> I spend $300+ I'll get a 10 pound lighter bike, but what difference
> is that going to make? The weight of the rider dominates the mass of
> the system, so a 10 lb bike weight reduction should only make you go
> 5-10% faster?
>
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

If you are mainly interested in riding a bike to burn calories, I
suggest you are better off with a heavy bike. And most casual cyclists
want to spend as little $ as possible, so your current bike might be
well suited for your needs. You will feel the effect of the extra
weight going uphill or into the wind, not as much on flat ground.

I don't think one can generalize about 'expensive bikes' as a
homogenous group. A particular expensive bike might be completely
wrong for the kind of riding you do. The bike I am currently riding
came with a bunch of crappy OEM parts like cheap weak rims and a weak
crank. But I am 200lbs / 6'4", and I often carry 25lbs cargo, so I
have had to upgrade most of my parts for greater strength. My rear rim
split some time ago, and recently my crank broke:

http://orion.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/broken_crank_out.jpg

http://orion.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/broken_crank_in.jpg

- Jay

 

[SMS]

Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
> Are you familiar with Craigslist, the web page? I did a quick search for a
> used bicycle .
>
> There were hundreds of high quality road, mtn, old, really old, not so
> old... heck, I got myself interested in a couple of them.
>
> Why ride a Wally World piece of **** when you can buy a really nice second
> hand bicycle on Craigslist.

Indeed craigslist is one of the best places to buy a good used bicycle.
Sometimes you can get lucky at garage sales, but it's a lot of hassle.

I bought a Univega mountain/hybrid on craigslist for $25. I just
couldn't find the type of bike I wanted new at a decent price, i.e. no
suspension, cromoly frame, non-compact frame, threaded headset.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 12:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?

Oh, good grief. (TM, Charlie Brown). If you want to know the answer to
this question in personal terms, just go to a good bike shop which
sells expensive bikes and ask for some test rides. Don't lie and say
you're definitely going to buy that day. Just ask to ride some decent,
lightweight road bikes in the $1500 - $2500 range. This is "mid range"
but still expensive enough. Take a few out for a just couple of miles
each. I'm pretty sure you will notice the "benefits" after one or two
test rides. And you'll start to like it after 3 or 4 test rides. Then
hang on to your credit card...

- Bob

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sep 4, 12:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> So what are the real benefits of expensive bikes?
>
> Oh, good grief. (TM, Charlie Brown). If you want to know the answer to
> this question in personal terms, just go to a good bike shop which
> sells expensive bikes and ask for some test rides. Don't lie and say
> you're definitely going to buy that day. Just ask to ride some decent,
> lightweight road bikes in the $1500 - $2500 range. This is "mid range"
> but still expensive enough. Take a few out for a just couple of miles
> each. I'm pretty sure you will notice the "benefits" after one or two
> test rides. And you'll start to like it after 3 or 4 test rides. Then
> hang on to your credit card...

Any bike, no matter how much it originally cost, runs
better right after it's been cleaned & shined-up
a bit, too.

I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
can be nice to possess something of quality and
aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

A Waterbury can keep just as good time as a
Rolex. In that vein, I think there are more
comprehensive benefits inherent in inexpensive
bikes, than expensive ones. For one thing,
there's less to worry about an inexpensive bike
getting stolen.

But maybe expensive, high-quality, "up-market" bikes
serve to qualify cycling as more than a trite
recreational pastime, or the realm of "losers" who
can't afford cars.

I don't particularly covet an expensive road bike,
myself. But if someone gave me one, I'd greatly
accept it. Of course, I'd have to only use it for
special occasions.

I especially don't want or need an expensive
mountain bike, for mountain biking purposes.
Why pay top dollar just to beat the livin'
daylights outa what you purchase?

So, I'm quite happy with what I've been blessed with.
It's good enough for a plebian like me.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Dana Myers]

Tom Keats wrote:

> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
> can be nice to possess something of quality and
> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

[...]

Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
move on.

Dana

 

[Dane Buson]

Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>
> [...]
>
> Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
> move on.

See, I get tired of stupid comments like that when I tell people I don't
own any carbon fiber bikes (or any CF parts). It's the same kind of
comment like I must dislike huge SUVs because I can't afford one. No, I
could afford either with ease, but they don't fit my needs or
particularities.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
Death before dishonor. But neither before breakfast.

 

[Dana Myers]

Dane Buson wrote:
> Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>> [...]
>>
>> Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
>> move on.
>
> See, I get tired of stupid comments like that when I tell people I don't
> own any carbon fiber bikes (or any CF parts). It's the same kind of
> comment like I must dislike huge SUVs because I can't afford one. No, I
> could afford either with ease, but they don't fit my needs or
> particularities.

I'm not sure which "stupid comments" you're referring to.
I don't own a CF bike either, so what? Do you really
have people that criticize you for not owning a CF bike?
That seems pretty darn shallow to me.

However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
like sour grapes to me. "Sugar candy" isn't the same as
"not something that suits my needs", hence my comment.

Dana

 

[Dane Buson]

Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>
>>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Just tell yourself, the grapes are sour anyway, and
>>> move on.
>>
>> See, I get tired of stupid comments like that when I tell people I don't
>> own any carbon fiber bikes (or any CF parts). It's the same kind of
>> comment like I must dislike huge SUVs because I can't afford one. No, I
>> could afford either with ease, but they don't fit my needs or
>> particularities.
>
> I'm not sure which "stupid comments" you're referring to.
> I don't own a CF bike either, so what? Do you really
> have people that criticize you for not owning a CF bike?

Oh, I've met them. Evidently, I'm not a serious rider because I don't
ride CF bikes (steel is heavy!). That and the people telling me to get
a powertap wheel.

> That seems pretty darn shallow to me.

Well, maybe so. I wasn't judging them to others, I just wish they'd
go elsewhere and be quiet.

> However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
> describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
> like sour grapes to me.

Well, to be fair they often are (though certainly not always). But
that's no different than any other form of transportation. i.e., After
a certain point you are not spending for core functionality but rather
for bells, whistles and 'prettiness'. And the dividing line for that is
of course subjective.

There, was that wishy-washy enough for you? ;-)

> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as "not something that suits my needs",
> hence my comment.

I just took it as part of Tom's love of word play and rhymes. Though I
might be wrong and it could certainly be taken that way.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
I think your opinions are reasonable, except for the one about my mental
instability.
-- Psychology Professor, Farifield University

 

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Oh, I've met them. Evidently, I'm not a serious rider because I don't
> ride CF bikes (steel is heavy!).

A steel frame is ok if built by De Rosa, Colnago, or Bianchi.

Not ok if 'Made in China'.

 

[Dana Myers]

Dane Buson wrote:
> Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I don't own a CF bike either, so what? Do you really
>> have people that criticize you for not owning a CF bike?
>
> Oh, I've met them. Evidently, I'm not a serious rider because I don't
> ride CF bikes (steel is heavy!). That and the people telling me to get
> a powertap wheel.

Sigh. I've had at least one well-intentioned piece of advice that
alloy frames are too harsh, but it was from a person that doesn't
actually ride. I should have asked which magazine they'd been
reading.

[...]

>> However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
>> describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
>> like sour grapes to me.
>
> Well, to be fair they often are (though certainly not always).

Well, I'm not sure how much *pure* vanity, but it's true,
as the price point goes up, the vanity margin increases, and,
at some point, effectively overwhelms everything else.

Tom never actually defined what "expensive" was; at moderate
levels of expense, the value can be quite good. At high levels
of expense, it's not about value at all.

> But
> that's no different than any other form of transportation. i.e., After
> a certain point you are not spending for core functionality but rather
> for bells, whistles and 'prettiness'. And the dividing line for that is
> of course subjective.

.... and thus we agree.

> There, was that wishy-washy enough for you? ;-)

Heh.

>> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as "not something that suits my needs",
>> hence my comment.
>
> I just took it as part of Tom's love of word play and rhymes. Though I
> might be wrong and it could certainly be taken that way.

It's difficult to tell without the nuance of interpersonal
communication. I could easily be quite mistaken, my apologies
if so.

Cheers -
Dana

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:27:22 -0700, Dana Myers <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as "not something that suits my needs",
>>> hence my comment.
>>
>> I just took it as part of Tom's love of word play and rhymes. Though I
>> might be wrong and it could certainly be taken that way.
>
>It's difficult to tell without the nuance of interpersonal
>communication. I could easily be quite mistaken, my apologies
>if so.

I do call those bikes "spun sugar".
Reason being, they're usually treated like they'd melt in the rain.

Tom, Dane and me ride in a lot of rain.

The only times I ever recall noticing carbon fibre bikes passing me
is when they're hanging off car.
--
zk

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dana Myers <[email protected]> writes:
> Dane Buson wrote:
>> Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>
>>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

[snip]

> However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
> describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
> like sour grapes to me.

I thought the context of my statements was quite clearly
nonjudgmental.

> "Sugar candy" isn't the same as
> "not something that suits my needs", hence my comment.

"Fine 'n dandy just like sugar candy" is just an old,
general-purpose cliche, like "I'm so hungry I could eat an
ox," or "There's not enough room in here to swing a cat."

I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
somehow. And I'd need some help moving it around.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Dana Myers]

Tom Keats wrote:

> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
> somehow.

Marinated, or injected with cheese and deep-fried, perhaps?
Just be careful where you pour out the grease afterwards.

(Dunno if you watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force )

Cheers -
Dana

 

[rdclark]

On Sep 17, 8:31 pm, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
> can be nice to possess something of quality and
> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.

What's "expensive"?

Several years ago I invested about $2k in a titanium touring/
cyclocross frame set up with hand-built Mavic touring rims, Ultegra
parts, racks, and other components that would, in my estimation, yield
a comfortable, reliable daily commuter that could also serve for solo
centuries and multi-day tours. I liked the lightness and comfort of
the ti frame, and I hand-picked all the other parts for balance
between performance and economy, and to suit my personal preferences.

It's hard to imagine being happier with a bike than I've been with
this one, and over 25,000 miles later it's met all my expectations and
has needed no extraordinary maintenance. (I'm particularly happy with
the wheels.)

Is $2000 expensive? I thought it was at the time. I believed I was
indulging myself because I could afford to.

I don't think so now. There may be a point where more money doesn't
buy you anything of measurable worth, but $2000 isn't that point. I
believe that every dollar I spent on this bike is part of the palpable
experience of riding it every day.

(It has no carbon fiber parts, however.)

r

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dana Myers <[email protected]> writes:
> > Dane Buson wrote:
> >> Dana Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Tom Keats wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
> >>>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
> >>>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
> >>>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
> >>>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>
> [snip]
>
> > However, equating an "expensive" bike to "sugar candy",
> > describing an "expensive" bike as pure vanity, sure sounds
> > like sour grapes to me.
>
> I thought the context of my statements was quite clearly
> nonjudgmental.
>
> > "Sugar candy" isn't the same as
> > "not something that suits my needs", hence my comment.
>
> "Fine 'n dandy just like sugar candy" is just an old,
> general-purpose cliche, like "I'm so hungry I could eat an
> ox," or "There's not enough room in here to swing a cat."
>
> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
> somehow. And I'd need some help moving it around.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

Tom: you find the ox, I'll provide the barbeque pit.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] 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

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> writes:

>> "Fine 'n dandy just like sugar candy" is just an old,
>> general-purpose cliche, like "I'm so hungry I could eat an
>> ox," or "There's not enough room in here to swing a cat."
>>
>> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
>> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
>> somehow. And I'd need some help moving it around.

....

> Tom: you find the ox, I'll provide the barbeque pit.

Remember that scene in Apocolypse Now? Okay, that might've
been a water buffalo who was bled stupid and then had his
head swiftly lopped off.

I have it in mind to marinate the ox with an ad hoc
mixture of (gallons of) terryaki & sherry, and some
select spices & herbs. Maybe toss some hand-picked
field mushrooms into the brew for the last 10 minutes
of marination (to be gently sizzled separately, of
course, for on the side.)

The logistics are overwhelming.

"I'm so hungry I could eat an ox" really means:
"Just kick the horns off & wipe it's ass, and
serve it to me stadt!"

Nevertheless, I'd rather barbecue an ox than shoot
a kevlar bicycle tire with a gub. Tires are mostly
inedible.

I think sweet potato pie should make a good post-ox
dessert. Or baked rice pudding (with raisins.)


cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dana Myers <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> I don't condone cruelty to cats, but I wouldn't mind
>> barbecuing an ox. I guess it would have to be marinated
>> somehow.
>
> Marinated, or injected with cheese and deep-fried, perhaps?
> Just be careful where you pour out the grease afterwards.
>
> (Dunno if you watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force )

No, but I think I've been there (and maybe sometimes
return to it.)

Anyways, I think /all/ bicycles are good, especially if
they're put to use. There are so many styles of bike,
as there are styles of riding. There's something for
everybody's purposes. And I think that's beautiful.

An ox injected with cheese (ox Kiev?) is a scary prospect.

Gotta have some "healthy" stuff along with it.
I kinda like beet tops. The cheese thing is tempting,
but sometimes we've gotta draw limits.

I wonder how one deals with ox leftovers?


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
rdclark <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sep 17, 8:31 pm, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>> I figure the real benefits of expensive bikes
>> are ... they're pretty. And that's okay. It
>> can be nice to possess something of quality and
>> aesthetic beauty. If it inspires a rider to ride,
>> that's fine 'n dandy, just like sugar candy.
>
> What's "expensive"?

More than you could ever dream of affording.

[snip]

> Is $2000 expensive?

That's a good question. A lot of good bike can be
had for that price.

>I thought it was at the time. I believed I was
> indulging myself because I could afford to.
>
> I don't think so now. There may be a point where more money doesn't
> buy you anything of measurable worth, but $2000 isn't that point. I
> believe that every dollar I spent on this bike is part of the palpable
> experience of riding it every day.

I'm very fond of those rough-'n-ready, bulletproof, cheap-o
Sugino cranksets. And minimal Victor (VP) cage pedals.
And I've developed an appreciation for steel cranks, provided
they look sharp, and are not too beat-up.

The cheap-o frame I'm currently riding survived a head-on
collision. The orig fork didn't survive so well[*]; I
just swapped-in another one (+ the front wheel) from a
similar bike.

Given a budget, I could gleefully pimp-up a two-wheeled
whip like nobody's business. But I have no such budget.

Oh, well. I have what I have, and I'm happy & satisfied
with it. I hope other folx are satisfied with whatever
they've got.

To get to the point: "Expensive" is buying a bike for
an unused wall-hanger.

My new 1996 Trek 930SHX cost about $1500 Cdn IIRC.
It was a nice bike, and the most expensive one
I'd ever owned. I even put it to some extensive XC
MTB use. Then the world blew up in my face, and
I had to divest myself of many material posessions.

Then I ended up living in a rooming house.
I chummed-up with a fellow in the next-door rooming house;
he asked if there's anything he could help me out with.
I jokingly asked: "Do you have a spare bike?" And to my
amazement, he said: "Yes" and handed me the Sekine mixte
of which I am so maternal about, over the fence.

Man, it felt /so/ good to be on a bike again!

Getting to the point of acquiring that bike both cost
me dearly, and educated me greatly (that was back when
astrologically, Pluto was dragging Sagittarians down to
Hell.) I guess it's like an apprenticeship. My
nextdoorikah, Ewald's birthday is one day away from mine.

Heh.

That ol' Sekine is just cheap junk to most of the world,
despite it's lovely, raven-black paint and sculpted lugs.


cheers,
Tom

[*] I still have it. It looks like a giant extracted wisdom
tooth with long, twisted roots.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca