any good ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It really depends on the use. If you only need a bicycle to ride a few times a year and you are not hard on it, it will be fine. The components that will likely give you some trouble after a year or so of use would be: derailleurs, bottom bracket, hubs, and rims. To get a quality new bike it will cost you $500+.
 
Originally Posted By: JSP
It really depends on the use.


No it does not. Quality is not a variable.
 
I bought my son a mountain bike from Walmart it is worth exactly what you pay for it. It is really not super good quality . Depends on its purpose.
 
Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
Maybe they are only looking for a Chevy, not a Cadillac...


Then why are they shopping for the equivalent of a Yugo?
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
What's your kid's safety worth?

Coming from a guy who doesn't wear a bike helmet...
I guess you would if you were forced to ride a bike from wally world?
wink.gif

I think most kids should have an old bmx bike as they are virtually indestructible... I still have my mid 80's norco spitfire tubro. We used to set up a stick highjump system... It took hundreds of 3 to 4 foot jumps to a flat landing, no bent rims, handle bars, I do remember breaking off a pedal or two but they were cheap.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
I bought my son a mountain bike from Walmart it is worth exactly what you pay for it. It is really not super good quality . Depends on its purpose.

it's not just quality of the parts, but quality of the ride. dept store bikes ride like chrap. cheap bikes do more to get people OFF bikes than ON them.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: moribundman
What's your kid's safety worth?

Coming from a guy who doesn't wear a bike helmet...


I wouldn't let my kid ride a bike without helmet. If I had a kid, I'd probably wear a helmet all the time.

I grew up riding my bike and doing all sorts of physical activities without protective gear. My survival quotient is high, although you may blame luck. I do wear a helmet and various other protective gear if I do any halfway serious (our definition for that may differ) off-road riding. In the case of normal road or light off-road riding I don't bother with protective gear. There are also studies that show that the injury rate of people wearing protective bicycling gear is higher compared to those who don't. Not that I believe that would be the case if I were wearing it, because the protection offered by such gear does not make me take greater risks.

But all this is besides the point. The point was that quality is not a variable. Something that's junk isn't of good or even reasonable quality just because a person's expectations or requirements are low.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman

But all this is besides the point. The point was that quality is not a variable. Something that's junk isn't of good or even reasonable quality just because a person's expectations or requirements are low.

Yep, I guess that's true.
There is some thing to be said for something that is "good enough" though. The bike above may get used for 10 hours of easy riding and I'd guess it will work well enough for that. For us with the $1000+ bikes it won't be a great bike but unless you're used to that you won't know what you're missing...
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman

But all this is besides the point. The point was that quality is not a variable. Something that's junk isn't of good or even reasonable quality just because a person's expectations or requirements are low.


Quality is not a variable, but for most users of any item, quality is determined in terms of an MTBF for the unit. Depending upon the use profile, the MTBF for a junk item may be sufficient to let it be used for its purpose and never encounter "a problem".

Doesn't mean the item is actually "quality", just that the item worked sufficiently for the needs of the day. This is, IMO, the "Harbor Freight business model" approach, and seems to work OK for many.

Doesn't mean that the item that is truly of lower quality won't give some headaches... or that the way that the "quality metric" is judged is right...
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: moribundman

But all this is besides the point. The point was that quality is not a variable. Something that's junk isn't of good or even reasonable quality just because a person's expectations or requirements are low.


Quality is not a variable


Exactly.
 
but buying a low quality bike and attempting to ride it may have a negative effect; you buy a dept store bike, you take it out, and realize the seat hurts. oh, well, I'm not used to that. then you realize it's hard to pedal up hills. once you push it up the hill and get back on for the downhill, why do these brakes squeak? they don't work well either. so now your clunky, noisy, heavy uncomfortable bike that you thought was 'good enough' gets relegated to the back of the garage, and all that's left is memories of how much you don't like riding a bicycle.
in all my years of selling and servicing bicycles, I NEVER had anyone say "I spent too much, I should have gotten the cheaper one", but there were PLENTY of people who wished they had gotten a better bike to begin with.
 
Interesting topic...

So what do the pundits consider an "entry" level road/touring bike?


btw: Where I work there is a person in the manf sector that drives a yugo. Albeit it is sporadically, conserving the usage or unusable a great percentage of the time? :) We laugh every time we see it, but it does still run.
 
Entry level touring bike? I guess the cheapest one available at a real bike shop made by a respected bike company. That's where I'd start looking atleast. You should probably get a better seat to start too. Maybe $500-700 total?

That's cool that the guy keeps his yugo going, its probably close to the bare necessities of driving, which has its own appeal atleast to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top